mv-i  ,<)j,j, 


n 


"n"n"ir'n"n'fir'B"n"n"n"n'  'hyn'-'ie-lf-Wi'n''^ii'-W-W-W-n=f-'n'-'=^^^-'''^ 

REESE  LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 
Class 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/discussionsinhisOOfishrich 


DISCUSSIONS 


IN  HISTOHY  AND  THEOLOGY 


By  GEORGE  P.  FISHER,  D.D.,  LL.D.,    ' 

TITtrS  STREET  PROFESSOB  OF  ECCIiKSIASTICAIi  HISTORY  IN  YAI-E  COLLEGE 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

743  AND  745  Broadway 

.   1880    . 


RFJ^SE 


111  CO 


CJOPTBIOHT  BT 

OHABLBS  SCBIBNEB'S  SONS. 


TbOW'8 

PfinmNO  AND  Bookbinding  Compant, 
;«}l-ai3  East  Twelfth  Street, 

MBW    TOBK. 


/ 


TO 

MY    MOTHER 

THIS  VOLUME  IS  AFFECTIONATELY  INSCRIBED. 


G.  P.  P. 


187464 


■     OF  THE     ' 

UNIVERSITY 


PREFACE. 


The  Essays  which  are  collected  in  this  volume,  with  a  few 
exceptions,  may  be  classified  under  three  heads. 

The  first  group,  beginning  with  the  second  Essay,  com- 
prises Papers  which  relate  to  the  history,  polity  and  dogmaS; 
of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church.  The  Church  of  Eome  has 
lately  undergone  two  changes  of  great  moment.  The 
principality  which  the  Pontiffs  had  ruled  for  a  thousand 
years,  has  fallen  from  their  grasp  and  been  absorbed  in  the 
new  kingdom  of  Italy ;  and  the  infallibility  and  supreme 
"  power  of  jurisdiction"  of  the  Pope  have  been  defined  by^ 
conciliar  decree.  These  new  aspects  of  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic system,  in  their  historical  relations,  and  in  their  bearings 
on  religion  and  civil  society,  are  among  the  topics  here 
considered.  How  the  genius  and  religion  of  ancient  Rome 
reappear  in  characteristic  features  of  Latin  Christianity, 
is  the  subject  of  one  of  the  Discussions  in  this  series. 

The  second  group  of  Essays  relates  to  'New  England 
theology.  Jonathan  Edwards  was  the  pioneer  in  a  move- 
ment which  was  carried  forward  by  a  succession  of  theo- 
logical leaders  after  him,  and  involved  important  modifica-" 
tions  in  the  philosophy  of  Calvinism.  The  character  of 
this  movement — the  most  original  in  the  history  of  Ameri-; 


VI  PEEFAOE. 

can  theology — and  the  peculiarities  of  the  principal  cory- 
phaei of  the  Kew  England  school,  I  have  attempted  impar- 
tially to  describe.  While  Calvinism  took  this  turn,  out  of 
the  old  Arminianism — which  withstood  the  revivalism  of 
Edwards  and  Whitefield — in  conjunction  with  other  in- 
fluences, Unitarianism  sprang  up,  in  its  various  types  and 
with  its  different  offshoots.  This  branch  of  the  religious 
history  of  New  England  is  the  subject  of  the  Paper  on 
Channing. 

The  third  division  pertains  to  Theism  and  Christian 
Evidences.  In  the  Essay  on  Eationalism,  the  defining 
characteristic  of  the  rationalistic  theory,  and  its  radical  as- 
sumption, are  pointed  out,  and  a  place  is  vindicated  for  the 
principle  of  authority  in  religion.  The  discourse  on  Atheism 
indicates,  without  elaborately  developing,  points  of  argu- 
ment which  appear  to  me  to  constitute  valid  grounds  of 
faith  in  the  personality  of  God,  In  the  Essay  on  the 
Apostle  Paul,  the  threads,  intellectual  and  spiritual,  which 
connect  the  two  portions  of  his  career — separated  from  one 
another  by  the  crisis  of  his  conversion — are  brought  to  light, 
and  comments  are  made  on  observations  of  Penan  and  of 
Matthew  Arnold.  The  Eeview  of  Supernatural  Heligion 
examines  the,  most  noteworthy  reproduction,  in  English 
literature,  of  the  modern  attack  by  the  Tubingen  criticism 
upon  the  genuineness  of  the  canonical  Gospels. 

Among  the  Essays  not  included  in  this  classification,  one 
has  for  its  object  to  trace  to  its  origin  the  Massacre  of  St. 
Bartholomew's  Eve,  and  to  sketch  the  rise  and  progress  of 
the  civil  wars  in  France,  down  to  that  epoch ;  a  second 
aims  to  set  forth  the  history  of  the  doctrine  of  future  pun- 
ishment in   the  church — in  particular,   the  opinions  and 


prefaoeJ.  vu 

arguments  of  modem  theologians  on  that  subject ;  a  third 
describes  the  position  taken  bj  the  Church  of  England  in 
reference  to  other  Protestant  Churches,  in  the  age  of  the 
Keformation  and  subsequently.  In  the  dissertation  last 
mentioned,  the  relations  of  the  Protestant  leaders  to  one  an- 
other in  the  different  European  countries,  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  are  incidentally  exhibited. 

G.  P.  F. 
'  Kbw  Havbn,  March  so,  1880. 


CONTENTS 


PAOX 

The  IVIassacre  op  St.  Bartholomew 1 


The  Influence  of  the  Old  Roman  Spirit  and  Religion  on 

Latin  Christianity ,     34 

The  Temporal  Kingdom  of  the  Popes 68 

The  Council  of  Constance  and  the  Council  of  the  Vatican..  101 

The  Office  of  the  Pope  and  how  he  is  Chosen 141 

The  Relation  of  Protestantism  and  of  Romanism  to  Modern 

Civilization 161 

The  Relation  op  the  Church  of  England  to  the  other  Pro- 
testant Bodies 176 

The  Philosophy  of  Jonathan  Edwards 227 

Channing  as  a  Philosopher  and  Theologian 253 

The  System  of  Dr.  N.  W.  Taylor  in  its  Connection  with 
Prior  New  England  Theology 285 

The  A.UGUSTINIAN  and  the  Federal  Doctrines  op  Original 
Sin 355 


X  CONTENTS. 

PAQB 

A  Sketch  of  the  History  op  the  Doctrine  op  Future  Pun- 
ishment   410 

Bationalism. 439 

The  Unreasonableness  op  Atheism 468 

The  Apostle  Paul 487 

The  Four  Gospels  :  A  Review  of  "  Supernatural  Religion."  512 


DISCUSSIONS. 


THE  MASSACRE  OF  ST.  BARTHOLOMEW.*   • 

Frai^^ce,  in  the  age  when  Protestantism  was  spreading  in 
Europe,  found  herself  in  a  place  where  two  seas  met.  If 
the  ship  of  state  did  not  go  to  pieces,  like  the  vessel  which 
threw  St.  Paul  upon  the  coast  of  Malta,  it  had  to  struggle 
through  a  long  and  frightful  tempest  from  which  it  barely- 
escaped.  In  the  other  European  countries  the  situation  was 
different.  There  was  intestine  discord,  but  not  to  the  same 
extent ;  or  with  consequences  less  ruinous. 

In  Germany,  the  central  authority  was  too  weak  to  coerce 
the  Lutheran  states.  The  war  undertaken  by  Charles  Y. 
for  that  purpose  was  brief,  and  comparatively  bloodless. 
The  final  issue  was  the  freedom  of  the  Protestants  for  a 
long  period,  until  imperial  fanaticism,  in  the  early  part  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  brought  on  the  terrible  Thirty 
Years'  War,  which  exhausted  what  was  left  of  the  vitality 
of  the  German  Empire,  and  ended  in  the  establishment  of 
Protestant  liberties  at  the  Peace  of  Westphalia  (1648).  In 
England,  as  late  as  Elizabeth's  reign,  not  less  than  one-half 
the  population  preferred  the  old  Church ;  but  in  the  wars  of 
the  Roses,  the  nobles  had  been  decimated,  and  regal  author- 
ity strengthened  ;  and  the  iron  will  of  the  Tudor  sovereigns, 
Henry  YIII.  and  Elizabeth,  coupled  with  an  inbred  hatred 
of  foreign  rule,  ecclesiastical  and  secular,  and  supported  by 

*  An  Article  in  The  New  Englander  for  January,  1880. 


2S  THE   MASSACRE    OF    ST.  BARTHOLOMEW. 

the  fervent  love  of  a  great  party  to  the  Protesant  faith,  kept 
the  nation  on  one  path,  and  stifled  various  attempts  at  insur- 
rection, which  might  otherwise  have  blazed  up  in  civil  war. 
In  Scotland,  the  league  of  the  nobles  with  the  reformers,  aided 
by  the  follies  of  Mary  Stuart,  proved  strong  enough  to  uphold 
against  the  opposing  faction  the  revolution  which  had  made 
Calvinism  the  legal  religion  of  the  country.  In  Sweden, 
Protestantism  speedily  triumphed  under  the  popular  dynas- 
ty erected  by  Gustavus  Yasa.  In  the  Netherlands,  tliere 
.was  a  fierce  battle  continued  for  the  greater  part  of  a  cen- 
tury; but  the  contest  of  Holland  was  against  Spain,  to 
throw  off  the  yoke  that  she  was  determined  to  fasten  upon 
that  persecuted  and  unconquerable  race.  In  Italy  and  in 
the  Spanish  peninsula.  Protestantism  did  not  gain  strength 
enough  to  stand  against  the  revived  fanaticism  of  its  adver- 
sary, and  was  swept  away,  root  and  branch. 

In  general,  it  may  be  said  that  in  the  north,  among  the 
peoples  of  the  Teutonic  stock,  the  preponderance  was  so 
greatly  on  the  side  of  the  Protestants,  that  the  shock  occa- 
sioned by  the  collision  of  opposing  parties  was  weakened 
and  unity  was  preserved ;  while  in  the  south,  among  the 
Eomanic  peoples  below  the  Alps  and  the  Pyrenees,  the 
CathoKc  cause  had  a  like  predominance  in  a  much  greater 
degree,  and  overwhelmed  all  opposition.  But,  as  for  France, 
she  stood  midway  between  the  two  mighty  currents  of  opin- 
ion. Her  people  belonged,  in  their  lineage  and  tongue,  to 
the  Latin  race ;  but  they  had  somewhat  more  of  German 
blood  in  their  veins  than  their  brethren  in  the  south,  and — 
what  is  much  more  important — ^by  their  geographical  situ- 
ation, previous  history,  and  culture,  they  were  made  much 
more  sensitive  to  the  influences  of  what  was  then  modem 
thought. 

Yet,  France  was  a  powerful  and  compact  monarchy,  and 
seemed  better  able  than  any  other  country  to  breast  the 
storm.  On  the  1st  of  July,  987,  Hugh  Capet,  Count  of 
Paris,  elected  king  by  an  assembly  of  nobles,  superseded  the 


THE   MASSACRE    OF    ST.   BARTHOLOMEW.  3 

foreign  Carlovingian  line,  and  was  crowned  at  Rlieims. 
From  him  all  the  later  kings  of  France — the  Bonaparte 
usurpers  alone  excepted — the  direct  Capetian  line,  the  Yalois, 
Bourbon,  and  Orleans  monarchs,  down  to  the  abdication  of 
Louis  Philippe,  are  spnmg.*  Out  of  the  dominion  of  Hugh 
Capet,  the  small  district  known  as  the  Isle  of  France,  of 
which  Paris  was  the  centre,  there  was  built  up  in  the  course 
of  centuries,  by  the  accretion  of  feudal  territories,  by  lucky 
marriages,  by  treaties  or  conquest,  the  modern  kingdom  of 
France.  The  wars  with  England  which  went  on,  with  many 
intervals,  for  250  years — from  the  end  of  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury to  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth — resulted  at  the  end  of 
this  period,  largely  through  the  heroic  deeds  of  Joan  of  Arc, 
in  the  expulsion  of  the  English  from  every  place  except  the 
single  town  of  Calais,  l^ormandy,  Guienne,  and  all  the 
other  territories  which  had  been  held  by  the  victors  of 
Creey,  Poitiers  and  Agincourt,  who  were  more  than  once 
the  almost  undisputed  masters  of  France,  fell  back  to  their 
native  and  rightful  owners.  Toward  the-  close  of  the  fif- 
teenth century,  the  crafty  policy  of  Louis  XL  effected  the 
downfall  of  Charles  the  Bold,  and  secured  to  France  the 
Duchy  of  Burgundy.  From  the  King  of  Aragon  he  ac- 
quired, on  the  south,  the  counties  of  E-oussillon  and  Cer- 
dagne,  the  last  of  which  was  permanently  incorporated  in 
France.  Anjou,  Maine,  and  Provence  reverted  to  him 
from  the  house  of  Anjou,  together  with  the  claims  of  that 
family  upon  [N'aples.  Charles  YIIL,  son  of  Louis  XL,  mar- 
ried Anne,  the  heiress  of  Brittany,  and  so  this  fine  province 
was  added  to  the  jewels  of  the  French  Crown. 

Francis  I.,  who  ascended  the  throne  in  1515,  two  years 
before  the  posting  of  Luther's  theses,  had  a  consolidated 
kingdom  powerful  enough  to  enable  him,  a  few  years  later, 
to  cope  on  equal  terms  with  his  rival,  Charles  Y.     At  home, 

*  The  Valois  line  begins  with  Philip  VI.  (1328) ;  the  Bourbon  with 
Henry  IV.  (1589) ;  the  Orleans  with  Louis  PhiUppe  (1830). 


4  THE   MASSACRE   OF   ST.  BARTHOLOMEW. 

he  could  set  at  defiance  the  will  of  his  parliaments,  and  aug- 
ment his  authority  through  the  Concordat  with  Pope  Leo 
X.,  which  secured  to  the  king  the  power  of  filling  bj  nomi- 
nation the  great  ecclesiastical  benefices  in  his  realm.  Dur- 
ing the  thirty-two  years  of  his  reign,  and  the  twelve  years'* 
reign  of  his  son  and  successor,  Henry  II.,  the  Protestants 
could  offer  only  a  passive  resistance  to  the  persecution  which 
was  instigated  and  managed  by  the  Sorbonne — the  Faculty 
of  Theology  at  Paris — and  which  found  myriads  of  brutal 
agents  throughout  the  land.  Francis,  and  Henry  after  him, 
with  one  arm  aided  the  German  Lutherans  in  their  contest 
with  Charles  Y.,  and  with  the  other  crushed  their  French 
brethren  of  the  same  faith.  "  One  king,  one  law,  one  faith," 
was  the  motto.  There  must  be  one  and  only  one  religion 
tolerated  in  the  realm.  Yet  Protestantism,  notwithstand- 
ing its  long  roll  of  martyrs,  and  partly  by  means  of  them, 
had  gained  a  firm  foothold  before  the  death  of  Henry  H. 

The  revival  of  learning,  which  in  other  countries  paved 
the  way  for  the  reform  in  religion,  was  not  without  its  natu- 
ral fruit  in  France.  Francis  himself  was  proud  of  being 
called  the  Father  of  Letters  ;  cherished  the  ideas  of  Erasmus ; 
founded  the  college  of  the  three  languages  at  Paris,  in  spite 
of  the  disgust  and  hostility  of  the  doctors  of  theology,  the 
champions  of  mediaevalism ;  drew  to  his  side  from  beyond 
the  Alps  men  like  Leonardo  da  Yinci,  scholars  and  artists  ; 
protected  his  sister  Margaret  in  her  Protestant  predilections ; 
and  contributed  not  a  little,  indirectly,  notwithstanding  his 
occasional  cruelties,  to  the  diffusion  of  the  new  doctrine. 
Henry  11.  was  more  of  a  bigot ;  but  he  followed  his  father's 
policy  of  joining  hands  with  the  Protestant  communities  of 
Germany,  in  opposition  to  Charles. 

The  first  converts  to  the  Reformation  in  France  were 
Lutherans ;  but  Lutheranism  was  supplanted  by  the  other 
principal  type  of  Protestantism.  Calvinism  was  more  con- 
genial to  the  French  mind.  Calvin  was  himself  one  of  the 
most  acute  and  cultivated  of  the  Frenchmen  of  that  age. 


THE   MASSACEE    OF    ST,   BARTHOLOMEW.  5 

Driven  from  his  country,  lie  continued  to  act  upon  it  from 
Geneva  with  incalculable  power.  Geneva  became  to  France 
what  Wittenberg  was  to  Germany.  The  lucid,  logical,  con- 
sistent character  of  the  system  of  Calvin  commended  it  to 
the  French  mind.  The  intense  moral  earnestness  and  strict 
ethical  standard  of  that  system  attracted  a  multitude  who 
were  shocked  by  the  almost  unexampled  profligacy  of  the 
age.  Among  the  higher  classes,  and  still  more  among  the 
industrious  and  intelligent  middle  classes,  the  Calvinistic 
faith  had  numerous  devoted  adherents.  In  1559  the  Cal- 
vinists  held  their  first  national  synod  at  Paris.  Their  places 
of  worship,  scattered  over  France,  numbered  at  that  time 
two  thousand  ;  and  in  their  congregations  were  four  hundred 
thousand  worshippers,  all  of  whom  met  at  the  risk  of  their 
lives.  That  same  year,  Heiiry  II.,  who  had  just  agreed  with 
Philip  II.,  in  the  treaty  of  Cateau-Cambresis,  to  exterminate 
heresy,  and  to  give  his  daughter  in  marriage  to  the  Spanish 
monarch,  was  accidentally  killed  by  a  splinter  from  the  lance 
of  Montgomery,  the  captain  of  his  guards,  with  whom  he 
was  tilting  at  the  festival  in  honor  of  the  wedding. 

The  whole  posture  of  affairs  was  now  changed.  His  old- 
est son,  Francis  II.,  was  a  boy  of  sixteen,  feeble  in  mind  and 
body.  He  was  not  young  enough  to  be  made  subject  to  a 
regency ;  and  too  yoimg,  had  he  been  possessed  of  talents 
and  character,  to  rule.  Who  should  govern  France  ?  Cath- 
erine de  Medici,  the  widow  of  Henry ;  she  to  whom,  more 
than  any  other  individual,  as  we  shall  see,  the  massacre  of 
St.  Bartholomew  was  due,  thought  that  the  power  for  which 
she  had  long  waited  was  now  within  her  grasp.  The  grand- 
daughter of  the  great  Lorenzo  de  Medici,  and  the  daughter 
of  Lorenzo  IL,  she  was  left  an  orphan  in  her  infancy,  and 
was  placed  in  a  convent.  Her  childhood  was  encompassed 
with  perils.  When  her  uncle,  Pope  Clement  YIL,  was  lay- 
ing siege  to  Florence,  in  1530,  she  being  only  twelve  years 
old,  the  council  of  the  city  proposed  to  hang  her  in  a  basket 
over  the  wall,  as  a  mark  for  the  besiegers'  cannon.     About 


6  THE  MASSACRE   OF   ST.  BARTHOLOMEW. 

ten  years  after,  she  was  married  to  Henry,  the  second  son 
of  Francis  I.,  in  pursuance  of  an  arrangement  between  the 
Pope  and  the  king,  which  grew  mainly  out  of  the  king's 
want  of  money.  The  death  of  the  Dauphin  placed  her  hus- 
band within  one  step  of  the  throne.  She  was  obliged  to  pay 
obsequious  com-t  to  the  mistresses  of  the  king  and  of  her 
husband,  the  Duchess  D'Etampes  and  Diana  of  Poitiers. 
Henry  regarded  her  with  a  feeling  little  short  of  repugnance. 
Under  this  feeling,  and  disappointed  that  she  bore  him  no 
children,  he  entertained,  at  one  time,  the  thought  of  sending 
her  back  to  Italy.  This  was  prevented  by  her  own  submis- 
sive demeanor,  and  by  the  favor  of  Francis  I.  Later,  after 
the  birth  of  her  children,  her  situation  became  more  toler- 
able. She  professed  to  be  utterly  devoted  to  her  husband, 
mourned  his  death  with  real  or  affected  grief,  and  would 
never  ride  or  drive  near  the  spot  where  he  received  the  fatal 
wound. 

Catherine  de  Medici  is  generally  considered  an  execrable 
character,  an  impersonation  of  the  principle  of  wickedness 
such  as  rarely  appears  on  earth,  especially  in  a  female  form. 
History  has  pi^t  her  in  the  pillory  among  monsters  of  iniqui- 
ty, like  Domitian,  Kero,  Caesar  Borgia,  enemies  and  destroy- 
ers of  their  kind.  It  is  hardly  possible  to  dispute  the  justice 
of  j:his  verdict.  Yet  she  was  not  destitute  of  attractive  quali- 
ties. On  the  ceiling  of  a  room  in  the  old  Burgundian  cha- 
teau at  Tanlay,  Catherine  is  painted  as  Juno,  with  two  faces, 
one  of  which  is  described  as  "  masculine  and  sinister,"  while 
the  other  is  full  of  "  sweetness  and  dignity."  She  might 
seem  to  have  a  dual  nature.  Her  complexion  was  olive,  be- 
speaking her  Italian  birth.  She  had  the  large  eyes  peculiar 
to  the  Medici  family.  Her  hand  and  arm  are  said  to  have 
been  "  the  despair  of  the  sculptor,"  so  faultless  was  their 
model.  She  was  of  medium  height,  large,  but  compactly 
made.  Her  figure  was  admired  even  in  middle  life.  She 
required  and  was  capable  of  the  most  vigorous  out-of-door 
exercise,    in  the  chase  she  dashed  on  through  stream  and 


THE  MASSACRE   OF   ST.  BARTHOLOMEW.  7 

thicket,  keeping  up  with  the  boldest  riders.  Then  she  would 
give  herself  up  with  a  hearty  appetite  to  the  pleasures  of  the 
table ;  but  she  arose  from  it  to  apply  herself  with  untiring 
energy  to  business.  Her  manners  were  lively  and  gracious  ; 
her  conversation  full  of  spirit  and  intelligence.  She  has  left 
behind  numerous  monuments  of  her  taste  in  architecture — 
the  palace  of  the  Tuileries  owed  its  beginning  to  her.  Her 
versatility  and  tact  were  equal  to  any  emergency.  Her  let- 
ters to  her  children  are  those  of  a  sympathetic  mother.  She 
was  personally  chaste,  little  as  she  valued  chastity  in  others. 
But  at  the  core,  as  Milton  says  of  Belial,  all  was  false  and 
hollow.  It  was  the  grace  of  the  leopard,  serving  as  a  veil 
for  its  ferocity.  Beneath  exterior  accomplishments,  and 
charms  even^  was  a  nature  devoid  of  moral  sense.  She  was 
swift  to  shed  blood,  when  a  selfish  end  required  it.  But 
falsehood,  and  the  treachery  that  springs  from  it,  was  her 
most  loathsome  trait. 

To  comprehend  the  possibility  of  such  a  character,  we 
must  remember  the  spirit  of  the  age,  and  the  atmosphere  in 
which  she  grew  up.  In  the  famous  church  of  Santa  Croce, 
at  Florence,  where  are  the  sepulchres  of  Michael  Angelo, 
Galileo,  Alfieri,  and  the  cenotaph  of  Dante,  the  attention  of 
the  visitor  is  arrested  by  an  impressive  epitaph.  High  up  on 
the  smooth  face  of  a  marble  monument  stands  the  name 
^NicoLAUs  Machiavelli.  Below,  where  the  inscription  would 
naturally  come,  there  is  a  broad  space  left  untouched  by  the 
chisel ;  beneath  which  are  carved  the  words :  "  Tanto  nomi- 
ni  nullum  par  elogium'^'^ — "  To  so  a  great  a  name  no  eulogy 
is  adequate ; "  as  if  the  peu  had  been  dropped  in  despair,  for 
want  of  words  commensurate  with  the  geniijs  and  merits  of 
the  statesman,  scholar,  and  historian,  whose  name  had  been 
recorded.  Yet  the  word  "  Machiavellian "  has  become  a 
current  term  to  denote  knavish  intrigue,  double-dealing,  and 
fraud.  It  would  be  unjust  to  Machiavelli  to  brand  him  as 
the  inventor  of  the  ethical  code  which  he  has  set  forth  in 
"  The  Prince."    This  work,  which  was  written  for  Lorenzo, 


8  THE  MASSACRE  OF  ST.  BAETHOLOMEW. 

the  father  of  Catherine,  deliberately  advises  rulers  to  break 
their  word,  whenever  they  find  it  convenient  to  do  so.  It 
presents  a  fair  picture  of  that  base  public  morality  of  the 
fifteenth  century,  which  had  grown  up  in  the  conflicts  of  the 
Italian  States,  and  under  the  eye  of 'the  Popes,  some  of 
whom  were  its  notorious  exemplars.  The  Machiavellian 
spirit  tainted  the  public  men  of  the  sixteenth  century ;  in 
some  degree,  the  best  of  them,  as  William  the  Silent,  and 
the  Regent  Murray  of  Scotland.  As  for  assassination — that 
in  Italy  had  been  almost  reduced  to  a  fine  art.  The  grand- 
father of  Catherine,  Lorenzo  I.,  barely  escaped  fi-om  a  mur- 
derous attempt,  which  proved  fatal  to  his  brother  Julian, 
who  fell  under  the  dagger  of  an  assassin  before  the  high 
altar  of  the  cathedral  of  Florence,  during  the  celebration  of 
mass — Pope  Sixtus  IV.  being,  probably,  the  chief  contriver 
of  the  plot.  Catherine  de  Medici  was  an  Italian  woman, 
born  and  nurtured  under  the  influences  that  then  prevailed, 
constrained  from  childhood  to  cloak  her  thoughts  and  im- 
pulses, and  developing,  under  the  unhappy  circumstances  in 
which  she  was  placed  prior  to  the  death  of  her  husband,  the 
cleverness  and  cunning  that  belonged  to  her  nature.  She 
was  destined  to  be  the  mother  of  three  kings  of  France,  and 
to  play  a  conspicuous  and  baleful  part  in  a  most  eventful 
period  of  French  history. 

At  the  accession  of  Francis  II.,  the  Queen  Mother  natu- 
rally felt  that  the  hour  for  the  gratification  of  her  ambition 
had  arrived.  But  she  was  disappointed.  She  found  that  the 
king  and  his  government  were  completely  under  the  sway 
of  the  family  of  Guise,  in  the  person  of  Duke  Francis,  and 
of  his  brother  Charles,  Cardinal  of  Lorraine — the  knight  and 
the  priest,  the  lion  and  the  fox  united.  Claude  of  Lorraine, 
their  father,  was  an  opulent  and  influential  noble,  who  had 
distinguished  himself  in  the  wars  against  Charles  Y.  His 
son  Francis,  who  was  now  forty  years  of  age,  had  acquired 
brilliant  fame  by  his  defence  of  Metz  against  the  Emperor, 
whom  he  forced  to  raise  the  siege  after  a  loss  of  30,000 


THE   MASSACRE   OF    ST.  BARTHOLOMEW.  9 

men,  and  also  bj  the  recent  capture  of  Calais  from  the  Eng- 
lish. The  Cardinal  had  been  the  confessor  and  trusted  coun- 
sellor of  Henry  II.  The  power  of  the  family  had  been  in- 
creased by  matrimonial  connections.  Their  brother  had 
married  a  daughter  of  Diana  of  Poitiers.  Their  niece, 
Mary  Stuart,  the  daughter  of  James  Y.  of  Scotland,  had, 
in  the  preceding  year,  when  she  was  sixteen  years  old,  mar- 
ried Francis  11.,  who  was  about  a  year  younger  than  herself. 
Her  beauty,  her  tact,  accomplishments,  and  energy,  were 
cast  on  the  side  of  the  Guise  influence.  With  her  aid,  her 
uncles  found  no  difficulty  in  managing  the  boy-king.  Cath- 
erine was  obliged  to  stand  back,  and  yield  up  the  station 
that  she  had  long  coveted.  The  Constable  Montmorenci, 
who,  with  his  numerous  relatives,  had  shared  power  with 
the  Guises  in  the  last  reign,  was  civiUy  dismissed  from  his 
post. 

The  Guises,  in  whose  hands  everything  was  practically 
left,  set  themselves  up  as  the  champions  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  cause,  and  the  enemies  of  the  Protestant  heresy. 
But  their  path  was  not  to  be  a  smooth  one.  The  princes  of 
the  house  of  Bourbon — descendants  of  a  younger  son  of 
Louis  IX.,  St.  Louis  of  France — considered  that  they  were 
robbed  of  their  legitimate  post  at  the  side  of  the  throne. 
Anthony  of  Yendome,  the  eldest,  was  the  husband  of  that 
noble  Protestant  woman,  Jeanne  D'Albret,  the  daughter  of 
Margaret,  the  sister  of  Francis  I.,  and  through  his  marriage 
wore  the  title  of  King  of  Navarre.  He  proved  a  vacillating 
and  selfish  adherent  of  the  Protestant  party,  which  he  at 
length  was  bribed  to  desert.  His  younger  brother,  Louis  of 
Conde,  who  had  married  a  niece  of  the  Constable,  and  a  de- 
voted Protestant,  was  a  gallant  soldier,  but  rash  in  counsel. 
With  the  Bourbons  stood  the  Chatillons,  the  sons  of  Louisa 
of  Montmorenci,  the  Constable's  sister ;  of  whom  the  most 
eminent  was  the  Admiral,  Gaspard  de  Coligny,  one  of  the 
greatest  men  of  that  or  of  any  age.  He  was  of  middle 
height,  with  his  head  slightly  bent  forward  as  if  in  deep 


10  THE   MASSACRE   OF   ST.  BARTHOLOMEW. 

thought.  His  spacious  forehead  reminds  one  of  the  por- 
traits of  William  the  Silent,  to  whom  in  character  he  had 
many  points  of  resemblance.  He  spoke  little,  and  slowly. 
In  battle,  his  grave  countenance  lighted  up,  and  he  was  ob- 
served to  chew  the  toothpick,  which,  to  the  disgust  of  a  class 
of  courtiers,  he  habitually  carried  in  his  mouth.  Frequent- 
ly defeated,  he  reaped  hardly  less  renown  from  defeats  than 
from  victories.  He  rose  from  them  with  unabated  vigor. 
His  constancy  never  wavered  in  the  darkest  hour.  He  em- 
braced the  Calvinistic  faith ;  and  whether  in  the  court,  the 
camp,  or  among  his  dependents  on  his  own  estate,  his  con- 
duct was  strictly  governed  by  the  principles  of  religion. 
His  reserve  and  gravity,  in  contrast  with  the  vivacious  tem- 
per of  his  countrymen,  commanded  that  respect  which  these 
qualities,  even  when  not  united  with  remarkable  powers  of 
intellect,  usually  inspire  in  them,  as  we  see  in  the  case  of 
Kapoleon  III. 

Here,  then,  in  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century,  in 
France,  were  all  the  materials  of  civil  war.  It  was  inevita- 
ble that  the  Calvinists,  harassed  beyond  endurance,  should 
league  themselves  with  the  disaffected  nobles  who  offered 
them  the  only  chance  of  salvation  from  their  persecutors, 
and  whose  religious  sympathies  were  on  their  side.  Thus 
the  Huguenots  became  a  political  party.  The  nation  was 
divided  into  two  bodies,  with  their  passions  inflamed.  A 
tempest  was  at  hand,  and  there  was  only  a  boy  at  the  helm. 

The  conspiracy  of  Amboise,  which  occurred  in  1560,  was 
an  abortive  scheme,  of  which  a  Protestant  gentleman  named 
La  Renaudie  was  the  chief  author,  for  driving  the  Guises 
from  power.  Conde  was  privy  to  it;  Calvin  disapproved 
of  it ;  Coligny  took  no  part  in  it.  The  next  year  the 
Estates  assembled  at  Orleans,  and  a  trap  was  laid  by  the 
Catholic  leaders  for  the*  destruction  of  all  Protestants  who 
should  refuse  to  abjure  their  religion.  Conde  had  been  ar- 
rested and  put  under  guard,  when,  just  as  the  fatal  blow  was 
ready  to  fall,   the  young  king  died.      Charles  IX.,   his 


THE   MASSACRE   OF    ST.  BARTHOLOMEW.  11 

brother,  was  only  ten  years  old,  and  it  was  no  longer  prac- 
ticable to  shut  out  his  mother  from  the  office  of  guardian 
over  him,  and  from  a  virtual  regency.  From  this  time  she 
comes  to  the  front,  and  becomes  a  power  in  the  State. 
Mary  Stuart  returned  to  Scotland,  and  on  another  theatre 
entered  upon  that  tragic  career  which  ended  on  the  scaffold 
at  Fotheringay.  The  Queen  Mother  was  now  free  from  her 
dangerous  rival.  Through  her  whole  career,  tortuous  and 
inconsistent  as  it  often  seemed,  Catherine  de  Medici  was 
actuated  by  a  single  motive — the  purpose  to  maintain  the 
authority  of  her  sons  and  her  own  ascendancy  over  them. 
To  check  and  cast  down  whichever  party  threatened  to  ac- 
quire a  dangerous  predominance  and  to  supplant  her,  was 
her  incessant  aim.  Caring  little  or  nothing  for  religious  doc- 
trines, she  hated  the  restraints  of  religion,  and  hence  could 
regard  Calvinism  only  with  aversion.  But  how  indifferent 
she  was  to  the  controversy  between  the  rival  churches  is 
indicated  by  her  jocose  remark,  when  the  mistaken  report 
reached  her  that  the  Protestants  had  gained  the  victory  at 
Dreux :  "  Then  we  shall  say  our  prayers  in  French."  She 
believed  in  astrology,  and  that  was  about  the  lunit  of  her 
faith.  To  rule  her  children,  and  to  rule  France  through 
them,  was  the  one  end  which  she  always  kept  in  view. 

The  civil  wars  began  in  1562  with  the  massacre  of  Yassy, 
where  the  troopers  of  Guise  provoked  a  conflict  with  an  un- 
armed congregation  of  Protestant  worshippers,  many  of 
whom  they  slaughtered.  Ten  years  intervened  between  this 
event  and  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew ;  years  of  intes- 
tine conflict,  when  France  bled  at  every  pore.  ^Neither 
party  was  strong  enough  to  subjugate  the  other.  The  pa- 
tience of  the  Protestants  had  been  worn  out  by  forty  years 
of  sanguinary  persecution.  The  battle  on  both  sides  was 
waged  with  bitter  animosity.  The  country  was  ravaged 
from  side  to  side.  The  Catholics  found  it  impossible  to 
crush  their  antagonists,  who  revived  from  every  disaster, 
and  extorted,  in  successive  treaties,  a  measure  of  liberty  for 


1S>  THE   MASSACRE   OF   ST.  BARTHOLOMEW. 

their  worship.  Among  the  events  which  it  is  necessary  for 
our  purpose  to  mention  is  the  assassination  of  the  Duke  of 
Guise  by  a  Huguenot  nobleman  in  1563,  while  the  Duke 
was  laying  siege  to  Orleans,  then  in  the  hands  of  the  Prot- 
estants. This  act  met  with  no  countenance  from  the  Prot- 
estant leaders.  It  was  condemned  by  Calvin.  It  was  said 
that  the  assassin,  when  stretched  on  the  rack,  avowed  that 
the  deed  was  done  with  the  connivance  of  Coligny.  But  he 
was  subjected  to  no  fair  examination,  and  there  was  no  rea- 
son to  doubt  the  assertion  of  the  Admiral  that  he  had  no 
agency  in  it.  He  admitted  that  for  six  months,  since  he  had 
learned  that  Guise  was  plotting  his  own  destruction  and 
that  of  his  brothers,  he  had  made  no  exertions  to  save  that 
nobleman's  life.  Innocent  though  Coligny  was  of  aU  parti- 
cipation in  this  deed,  it  planted  seeds  of  implacable  hostility 
in  the  minds  of  Guise's  family,  the  fruits  of  which  eventu- 
ally appeared.  Another  event,  which  it  specially  concerns 
us  to  notice,  was  the  insurrection  of  the  Huguenots  which 
they  set  on  foot  several  years  later,  in  anticipation  of  a  pro- 
jected attack  upon  them,  and  which  resulted  in  their  extort- 
ing from  Charles  IX.,  in  1568,  the  Peace  of  Longjumeau. 
The  king  was  exasperated  at  being  obliged  to  treat  w^ith  his 
subjects  in  arms.  This  humiliating  event  was  skilfully  used 
afterward  to  goad  him  on  to  a  measure  to  which  he  was  not 
spontaneously  inclined. 

At  this  time  the  foundations  of  the  Catholic  League  were 
laid.  The  extreme  Catholics  began  to  band  themselves 
together,  instigated  by  the  spirit  of  the  Catholic  reaction 
which,  through  its  mouthpiece,  the  Pope,  and  its  secular 
head,  Philip  II.,  breathed  out  fire  and  slaughter  against  all 
heretics.  Between  this  bigoted  faction,  which  became  more 
and  more  furious  as  time  went  on,  and  the  Huguenots,  were 
the  Moderates — the  Politiques,  as  they  were  called — Catho- 
lics who  deplored  the  continuance  of  civil  war,  deprecated 
the  undue  ascendancy  of  Spain,  and  were  in  favor  of  an  ac- 
commodation with  the  Protestants.    The  treachery  of  Cath- 


THE   MASSACKE    OF    ST.  BARTHOLOMEW.  13 

erine  de  Medici  broke  the  treaty  of  Longjumeau  ;  but  ber 
plan  to  entrap  and  destroy  the  Huguenot  leaders  failed. 
Tlieir  defeat  at  Jarnac,  wliere  Conde  perished,  and  at  Mon- 
contour,  with  the  military  triumph  of  her  favorite  son,  the 
Duke  of  Anjou,  did  not  bring  to  her  content.  The  defeated 
forces  of  the  Protestants,  under  the  masterly  lead  of  Coligny, 
found  a  refuge  within  the  walls  of  Rochelle,  where  the 
Queen  of  Navarre  established  her  court,  and  whence  Co- 
ligny, with  his  cavalry,  and  with  the  young  princes,  Henry 
of  Kavarre  and  Henry  of  Conde  at  his  side,  was  soon  able 
to  sally  forth  and  take  the  offensive.  The  Queen  Mother 
was  now  eager  for  peace.  The  atmosphere  of  intrigue  and 
diplomacy  was  always  more  pleasing  to  her  than  the  clash 
of  arms.  The  king's  treasury  was  exhausted.  He  did  not 
relish  the  military  successes  of  Anjou.  The  Huguenots 
sprang  up  from  their  defeats  with  indomitable  courage. 
Moreover,  Catherine,  the  king,  the  whole  party  of  Moder- 
ates, saw  that  the  continuance  of  the  strife  could  only  re- 
dound to  the  profit  of  Philip,  who  lent  aid  or  withheld  it, 
with  sole  reference  to  his  own  ambitious  projects.  If  the 
war  was  to  go  on  between  the  king  and  his  Protestant  sub- 
jects, the  latter  would  get  help  from  England  and  Germany, 
and  the  government,  forced  to  fall  back  upon  the  support  of 
Spain,  would  come  into  practical  subservience  to  Philip. 
To  this  the  Queen  Mother  was  not  at  all  inclined.  At  the 
Conference  of  Bayonne  in  1565,  both  she  and  Charles  IX. 
had  disappointed  Alva  by  refusing  to  enter  into  his  plan  for 
a  common  crusade  against  the  heretical  subjects  of  France 
and  Spain.  Thus,  in  1570,  the  Peace  of  St.  Germain  was 
concluded.  The  Huguenots,  who  could  not  longer  be  ex- 
pected to  trust  the  king's  word,  were  put  in  possession  of 
four  fortified  towns  for  the  space  of  two  years:  They  were, 
to  be  given  up  to  Henry  of  Navarre,  Henry  of  Conde,  and 
twenty  Huguenot  gentlemen.  The  Lorraine  faction,  the 
Guises  and  their  followers,  acquiesced  in  the  treaty. 

Observe,  now,  the  political  situation.     The  policy  of  the 


14  THE  MASSACEE   OF   ST.  BAETHOLOMEW, 

court  was  turned  in  the  anti- Spanish  direction.  The  power 
of  Philip  was  becoming  too  formidable.  The  Duke  of  Alva 
had  begun  his  bloody  career  in  the  Netherlands  in  1567  with 
the  execution  of  Egmont  and  Horn,  and  numerous  other  judi- 
cial murders.  Now,  his  tyranny  was  at  its  height.  Philip 
had  planned  a  marriage  between  his  half-brother,  Don  John 
of  Austria,  and  Mary  Stuart,  which  would  give  him,  as  he 
hoped,  control  over  Scotland  and  England  both.  He  was 
already  supreme  in  Italy.  His  wish  was  to  marry  his  sister 
to  Charles  IX.,  and  to  unite  with  him  in  an  anti-Protestant 
coalition.  Then  all  Europe  would  lie  at  his  feet,  and  France 
be  practically  a  Spanish  province.  On  the  25th  of  Febru- 
ary, 1570,  Pius  Y.,  an  untiring  and  unpitying  instigator  of 
persecution,  issued  his  bull  of  excommunication  against 
Elizabeth.  A  year  after,  the  brilliant  victory  of  Spain  over 
the  Turks  at  Lepanto  still  further  raised  the  jpu'estige  of 
Philip,  and  left  him  more  free  to  pursue  his  ambitious 
schemes  in  Western  Europe.  The  Queen  Mother  loved 
power  too  well  for  herself  and  her  children,  to  fall  into  the 
snare  which  Philip  was  setting.  She  entered  warmly  into 
the  project  of  a  marriage  between  her  second  son,  the  Duke 
of  Anjou,  and  Elizabeth,  which  was  first  suggested  by  the 
brother  of  Coligny.  When  Anjou,  seduced  by  the  Spanish 
court,  and  by  the  offer  of  100,000  crowns  from  the  Pope's 
Nuncio,  drew  back  from  a  match  with  a  heretic  so  much 
older  than  himself,  Catherine  was  eager  to  substitute  for 
him  his  younger  brother  Alen9on ;  and  indulged  also  the 
chimerical  hope  that  Anjou  might  secure  the  hand  of  Mary 
Queen  of  Scots.  This  policy  of  the  court  could  not  be  other- 
wise than  satisfactory  to  the  Huguenots.  War  with  Spain, 
to  be  fought  out  in  the  Netherlands,  in  alliance  with  England 
and  G-ermany,  but  with  due  care  for  French  interests,  ap- 
pealed at  once  to  their  patriotic  feeling  and  their  religious 
enthusiasm.  The  government  and  the  Huguenot  party  were 
thus  drawn  toward ^ach  other.  A  marriage  between  Henry 
of  Navarre  and  Margaret  of  Yalois,  the  daughter  of  Cath- 


THE  mASSACEE  of   ST.  BARTHOLOMEW.  16 

erine,  had  been  spoken  of  long  before,  prior  to  the  death  of 
Henry  II.,  when  both  Navarre  and  Margaret  were  children. 
The  idea  was  now  revived  from  the  side  of  the  Moderates, 
by  a  son  of  Montmorenci.  It  was  heartily  favored  by 
Catherine,  warmly  supported  by  the  king,  who  was  person- 
ally fond  of  Henry,  and  was  struck  with  the  expediency  of 
a  marriage  which  would  thus  unite  the  contending  parties ; 
and  it  obtained  at  length  the  consent  of  the  high-toned  Queen 
of  Navarre,  with  whom  worldly  distinction  for  her  son  was 
of  far  less  account  than  honor  and  religious  conviction. 
Coligny  and  the  other  Huguenot  leaders  lent  their  cordial 
approval  to  the  plan. 

Coligny  was  now  urgently  invited  to  come  to  the  court. 
The  king  and  the  Queen  Mother  were  anxious  to  have  the 
benefit  of  his  counsel.  Despite  the  opposition  of  his  friends, 
including  the  Queen  of  Navarre,  who  were  unwilling  to  see 
him  commit  himself  to  the  hands  of  those  who  had  been,  in 
the  past,  his  perfidious  enemies,  Coligny  determined  to  com- 
ply with  the  invitation.  He  confided  in  Charles,  he  said ; 
he  would  rather  die  at  once,  than  live  a  hundred  years,  sub- 
ject to  cowardly  apprehensions.  He  earnestly  desired  to 
bring  the  civil  conflict  to  an  end.  He  was  full  of  ardor  for 
the  enterprise  against  Philip,  in  the  Netherlands,  into  which 
he  hoped  to  carry  the  king.  It  would  give  employment  to 
the  numerous  mercenaries  and  marauders  whom  the  Cessa- 
tion of  the  war  at  home  had  left  idle.  It  would  strike  a 
blow,  alike  honorable  and  useful  to  France,  and  damaging 
to  Spain.  Coligny  left  Eochelle,  escorted  by  fifty  gentle- 
men, and  arrived  at  Blois,  where  the  court  was,  on  the  12th 
of  September,  15Y1.  He  was  welcomed  by  Catherine,  and 
by  the  king,  who  greeted  him  with  the  title  of  "  father," 
and  declared  that  day  to  be  the  happiest  of  his  life. 

Charles  was  twenty-one  years  of  age.  His  natural  talents 
were  above  the  ordinary  level.  He  was  fond  of  music,  and 
his  poetical  compositions  were  not  without  merit.  But  the 
education  which  he  had  received  was  the  worst  possible. 


16  THE   MASSACRE   OF   ST.  BARTHOLOMEW. 

llis  nature  was  unhealthy,  and  utterly  unregulated.  Though 
not  a  debauchee,  like  his  brother  Anjou,  his  morbid  impulses 
raged  without  control :  his  anger,  when  excited,  bordered  on 
frenzy.  Yet  there  was  in  him  a  latent  vein  of  generous 
feeling.  He  met  in  Coligny,  almost  for  the  first  time  in  his 
life,  a  man  whom  he  could  revere.  Coligny  was  fifty-four 
years  of  age.  He  had  been  a  man  of  war  from  his  youth 
up ;  but  he  had  drawn  the  sword  from  a  stern  sense  of 
duty ;  and  his  lofty  character  could  not  fail  to  impress  all 
who  were  thrown  in  his  company.  He,  in  turn,  seemed  to 
be  charmed  with  his  young  sovereign.  The  jealousy  of 
Catherine  was  soon  aroused.  "He  sees  too  much  of  the 
Admiral,"  she  said,  "  and  too  little  of  me."  As  the  veteran 
soldier  painted  the  advantages  that  would  result  from  going 
to  the  rescue  of  William  of  Orange,  and  striking  a  blow  at 
Spain  in  the  Low  Countries,  the  sympathy  of  Charles  was 
awakened,  and  he  expressed  an  e^ger  deshe  to  enter  person- 
ally into  the  contest. 

Meantime,  the  project  of  the  marriage  of  Henry  and  Mar- 
garet continued  to  be  pushed.  The  Queen  of  Navarre  was 
persuaded  herself  to  come  to  Blois,  in  March,  1572.  While 
there,  in  a  letter  to  her  son,  she  described  the  indecency  of 
the  court,  where  even  the  women  had  cast  off  the  show  of 
modesty,  and  did  not  blush  to  play  the  part  of  seducers. 
The  marriage  of  Henry  and  Margaret,  the  plan  of  a  matri- 
monial connection  with  Elizabeth,  the  scheme  of  an  offensive 
alliance  with  England,  and  of  a  war  with  Spain,  to  be  waged 
in  Flanders,  were  all  parts  of  a  line  of  policy  which  the  Hu- 
guenots urged,  and  which  Catherine  for  a  while  favored. 
But  she  became  more  and  more  alarmed  at  the  influence  ac- 
quired by  Coligny.  Elizabeth  was  cautious,  and  the  negoti- 
ations looking  to  a  change  of  the  defensive  into  an  offensive 
alliance,  lagged.  A  war  with  Spain,  Catherine  felt,  would 
establish  Coligny's  ascendancy  over  the  mind  of  Charles. 
Such  a  war  she  more  and  more  dreaded  on  its  own  account ; 
and  when  the  force  secretly  sent  by  Charles,  under  Ge^^s, 


THE   MASSACRE   OF    ST.  BARTHOLOMEW.  17 

to  the  support  of  Orange,  was  defeated  and  cut  np  by  Alva's 
son,  the  Queen  Mother  declared  herself  vehemently  agamst 
the  measure  on  which  Coligny  rested  all  his  hopes  for  France, 
and  towards  which  the  king,  in  his  better  moods,  was 
strongly  inclined.  In  the  council,  the  party  opposed  to  the 
war  was  led  by  Anjou.  He,  with  Catherine,  Retz,  Tavan- 
nes,  and  others  to  support  him,  was  able  to  keep  back  the 
king  from  an  *  absolute  decision ;  and  thus,  through  the 
spring  and  early  summer  of  1572,  the  question  was  warmly, 
and  sometimes  angrily,  debated.  The  death  of  the  Queen 
of  IN^avarre  at  Paris,  on  the  9th  of  June,  was  one  cause  for 
the  postponement  of  the  wedding  of  her  son  to  the  18th  of 
August.  The  refusal  of  the  Pope  to  grant  a  dispensation 
was  another  hinderance.  The  king  was  resolved  to  effect 
the  marriage,  with  or  without  the  Pope's  consent.  A  forged 
letter,  purporting  to  come  from  Rome,  announcing  the  con- 
sent of  Gregory  XIII.,  the  new  Pope,  to  the  nuptials,  was 
exhibited  by  Charles  to  the  Cardinal  of  Bourbon,  who  had 
refused  to  solemnize  the  marriage  without  the  papal  authori- 
zation. 

In  subsequent  years  Henry  TV.,  the  Conqueror  of  Ivry 
and  the  Restorer  of  Peace  to  France,  looked  back  on  the  8th 
of  July,  1572,  as  one  of  the  brightest  days  in  all  his  tempestu- 
ous career.  On  that  day  he  made  his  entry  into  Paris,  riding 
between  the  king's  two  brothers,  and  accompanied  by  Conde, 
the  Cardinal  of  Bourbon,  the  Admiral  Coligny,  and  eight 
hundred  mounted  gentlemen.  The  procession,  however,  was 
greeted  with  little  enthusiasm  by  the  crowd  that  filled  the 
streets.  Paris  was  the  hot-bed  of  Catholic  fanaticism.  In 
all  the  treaties  which  had  given  liberty  to  the  reformed 
worship,  the  capital  had  been  excepted.  Here  the  enmity 
of  the  populace  to  the  Huguenots  was  rancorous  in  the  ex- 
treme. All  the  pulpits  in  those  days  rang  with  fierce  invec- 
tives against  the  heretics.  Guise,  with  his  mother,  the 
Duchess  of  I^Temours,  and  with  a  great  military  following, 
came  to  Paris  also.     The  Huguenots  had  no  protection  but 


18  THE  MASSACRE   OF   ST.    BAETHOLOMEW. 

their  own  vigilance,  their  swords,  and,  above  all,  the  good 
faith  of  the  king,  against  the  host  of  enemies  by  whom  they 
were  surrounded. 

On  the  18th  of  August  the  long-expected  marriage  took 
place.  The  splendid  procession,  composed  of  the  royal 
family  and  the  nobility  of  France,  moved  along  a  covered 
platform  from  the  Bishop's  palace  to  the  pavilion  erected  in 
front  of  Notre  Dame,  where  the  ceremony  took  place.  The 
bride,  whose  beauty  and  grace  of  person  unhappily  were  not 
associated  with  moral  qualities  equally  winning — ^f  or  she  was 
untruthful  and  vain,  if  not  something  worse — describes  her 
own  costume — her  crown,  her  vest  of  ermine  spotted  with 
black  {couet  d'hermine  mouchetee\  all  brilliant  with  pearls, 
and  the  great  blue  mantle,  whose  train  of  four  ells  in  length 
was  carried  by  three  princesses.*  Charles,  Navarre  and 
Conde,  in  token  of  their  mutual  affection,  were  dressed 
alike,  in  garments  of  light  yellow  satin,  embroidered  with 
silver,  and  glittering  with  pearls  and  precious  stones.  Mi- 
cheli,  one  of  the  Yenetian  ambassadors — accurate  reporters 
— states  that  the  cost  of  the  king's  bonnet,  charger,  and  gar- 
ments, wa§  half  a  million  crowns ;  while  Anjou  wore  in  his 
hat  thirty-two  well-known  pearls,  purchased  at  a  cost  of 
23,000  gold  crowns.  All  this,  when  the  royal  treasury  was 
exhausted  !  Navarre  led  his  bride  from  the  pavilion  into 
the  church  ;  and  then,  during  the  celebration  of  mass,  with 
the  Huguenot  chiefs  withdrew  to  the  adjacent  cloister.  De 
Thou,  the  French  historian,  who  was  then  a  youth  of  nine- 
teen, after  the  mass  was  over,  climbed  over  the  barriers 
errected  to  keep  off  the  people,  went  into  the  choir,  and  heard 
Coligny,  pointing  to  the  flags  taken  at  Jarnac  and  Moncon- 
tour,  say  to  Damville  that  "  soon  these  would  be  replaced  by 
others  more  agreeable  to  see ; "  alluding  to  the  war  in  Flan- 
ders, on  which  his  thoughts  were  bent.  The  next  few  days 
were  given  up  to  festivities — "  balls,  banquets,  masques  and 

*  Memoiresde  Marguerite  de  Valois,  in  Petitot's  Collection,  torn,  xxxvii., 
p.  48.  . 


THE  MASSACRE   OF   ST.    BARTHOLOACEW.  19 

tourneys,"  into  wliich  IS'avarre  entered  with  zest,  but  which 
were  equally  offensive  and  tedious  to  the  grave  Coligny,  who 
longed  to  be  away,  and  who  vainly  tried  to  draw  the  king's 
attention  to  the  business  which  lay  nearest  his  heart.  Charles 
put  him  off.  He  must  have  a  few  days  for  pleasure ;  then 
the  admiral  should  be  gratified. 

Five  days  after  the  wedding,  on  Friday,  the  22d  of  Au- 
gust, at  a  little  past  ten  in  the  morning,  as  Coligny  was 
walking  between  two  friends  from  the  Louvre  to  his  own 
lodgings,  an  arquebus  was  discharged  at  him  from  a  latticed 
window  of  a  house  standing  near  the  cloister  of  St.  Germain 
I'Auxerrois.  At  the  moment  he  was  in  the  act  of  reading  a 
petition.  He  was  hit  by  a  bullet  on  the  first  finger  of  the 
right  hand  ;  another  bullet  entered  his  left  arm.  With  his 
wounded  hand  he  pointed  out  the  window  whence  the  shot 
had  come,  and  directed  an  attendant  to  inform  the  king. 
He  was  then  conducted  to  his  lodgings.  The  king,  vexed 
and  enraged,  threatened  vengeance  upon  the  guilty  parties. 
His  surgeon,  Ambrose  Pare,  was  sent,  who  amputated  the 
finger,  and  extracted  the  ball  from  the  arm.  Navarre,  at- 
tended by  hundreds  of  Huguenot  gentlemen,  soon  visited 
the  admiral.  Conde  and  other  Huguenot  leaders  waited 
on  the  king,  and  demanded  leave  to  retire  from  the  court, 
where  their  lives  were  not  safe.  Charles  beo^^ed  them  to  re- 
main,  and  swore  vengeance  upon  the  perpetrators  of  the 
deed. 

The  authors  of  the  attempt  to  assassinate  Coligny  were 
Catherine  de  Medici,  and  her  son,  the  Duke  of  Anjou,  in 
conjunction  with  the  Duke  of  Guise  and  his  mother.  The 
house  belonged  to  a  dependant  of  Guise ;  the  weapon,  which 
was  found  in  it,  to  one  of  Anjou's  guards.  The  instrument 
who  was  employed  to  do  the  work  was  Maurevel,  who,  a  few 
years  before,  had  been  hired  to  kill  Coligny,  at  a  time  when 
a  price  was  set  on  his  head,  but  had  murdered  one  of  his 
lieutenants,  Moiiy,  in  his  stead. 

In  the  year  following  the  massacre  of  St.  'Bartholomew, 


2U  THE   MASSACRE   OF   ST.   BARTHOLOMEW. 

Anjou — afterward  Henry  III. — ^was  elected  king  of  Po- 
land. In  the  narrative  which  he  is  said  to  have  given  ver- 
bally to  Miron,  his  physician,  we  are  furnished  with  an  ac- 
count of  the  motives  and  causes  of  the  transaction  in  which 
he  bore  so  guilty  a  part.  The  reporter,  Miron,  states  that 
when  Henry  III.  was  on  his  way  to  Poland,  in  the  cities  of 
the  Low  Countries,  wherever  a  crowd  was  assembled,  he  was 
saluted  with  bitter  execrations  in  German,  French,  and  Latin, 
for  his  agency  in  the  massacre ;  and  that  in  apai-tments 
where  he  was  entertained  and  lodged,  he  found  paintings 
depicting  scenes  in  that  fearful  tragedy,  which  had  been  ar- 
ranged beforehand  to  meet  his  eye.  Hence,  two  days  after 
his  arrival  in  Cracow,  he  was  kept  awake  in  the  night  by  the 
recollection  of  the  terrible  occurrences  which  had  thus  been 
brought  to  his  mind.  Restless  and  agitated,  about  three 
hours  after  midnight,  he  summoned  Miron  from  an  adjacent 
room  to  his  bedside,  and  related  to  him  there  the  story  of 
the  origin  of  the  massacre.  According  to  this  statement  of 
Henry  IH.,  Charles,  in  the  period  just  before  the  Navarre 
marriage,  was  in  frequent  conference  with  Coligny ;  and 
after  those  long  conferences,  the  king  treated  Anjou  and  his 
mother  in  a  very  frigid  and  even  rough  manner.  On  one 
occasion,  as  Anjou  was  entering  the  king's  apartment,  after 
one  of  these  interviews,  Charles  looked  at  him  askance  in  a 
fierce  way,  and  laid  his  hand  upon  the  hilt  of  his  dagger,  so 
that  he  was  glad  to  escape  precipitately  from  the  king's 
presence.  Convinced  that  Coligny  was  undermining  the  king's 
regard  for  them,  the  Queen  Mother  and  Anjou  resolved  to 
destroy  him ;  and  for  this  end  called  in  the  aid  of  the 
Duchess  of  Nemours — the  widow  of  Guise,  and  an  Italian 
by  birth — whose  vindictive  hatred  of  the  Huguenot  leader 
made  her  a  willing  coadjutor.  Maurevel,  who  had  abundant 
cause  to  fear  the  Chatillons,  was  pitched  upon  to  do  the  deed. 
When  the  attempt  had  failed,  the  king  after  dinner — he 
dined  at  eleven — went  to  visit  the  wounded  admiral.  Cath- 
erine and  Anjou  took  care  to  go  with  him.     While  they  were 


THE   MASSACRE   OF   ST.    BAERHOLOMEW.  21 

in  the  Admiral's  chamber,  he  signified  his  wish  to  speak  with 
the  king  privately.  Anjou  and  his  mother  retired  to  another 
part  of  the  room.  Alarmed  at  the  way  in  which  this  pri- 
vate conference  was  prolonged,  and  at  the  menacing  de- 
meanor of  the  throng  of  Huguenot  gentlemen,  who  treated 
them  with  less  than  usual  respect,  Catherine  stepped  to  the 
bedside,  and,  to  the  obvious  disgust  of  the  king,  broke  off  the 
conversation — saying  that  Coligny  must  not  be  wearied,  that 
there  was  danger  of  fever,  and  that  a  future  time  must  be 
chosen  for  finishing  their  talk.  Whatever  may  be  false  in 
this  narrative  of  Henry  III.,  or  may  be  omitted  from  it, 
the  main  circumstances  of  the  interview  are  correctly  given. 
Coligny  thought  that  the  bullets  might  have  been  poisoned, 
and  he  wished  to  give  his  dying  counsel  to  the  sovereign.  On 
the  way  back  to  the  Louvre,  Anjou  proceeds  to  say,  Catherine 
by  her  importunity  wrung  from  the  king  the  avowal  that  the 
admiral  had  warned  him  of  the  fatal  consequences  that 
would  follow  from  allowing  the  management  of  public  affairs 
to  remain  in  her  hands,  and  had  advised  him  to  hold  her  in 
suspicion,  and  to  guard  against  her.  This  the  king  uttered 
with  extreme  passion,  implying  that  he  approved  of  Coligny's 
advice. 

There  was  good  ground  for  the  consternation  of  the  Queen 
Mother  and  of  Anjou.  A  crisis  had  come  for  which  they 
were  not  prepared.  The  wrath  of  the  Huguenots  was  ready 
to  burst  forth  in  an  armed  attack  upon  the  opposite  faction. 
They  were  restrained  only  by  the  king ;  and  even  he  was 
resolved  to  punish  to  the  full  the  assailants  of  Coligny.  If 
the  Guises  fell,  the  ascendancy  of  the  Huguenot  chief,  who 
would  recover  from  his  wounds,  was  assured.  But  the  pun- 
ishment which  the  king  threatened  might  fall  on  Anjou, 
also,  if  not  on  Catherine  herself.  Nothing  was  left  to  her 
but  to  make  another  desperate  effort,  with  the  aid  of  coun- 
sellors as  unprincipled  as  herself,  to  win  back  the  king,  re- 
sume the  control  over  him  which  she  had  exercised  from  his 
childhood,  and  to  enlist  him  in  the  work  of  destroying  the 


532  THE   MASSACRE   OF    ST.   BARTHOLOMEW. 

• 

Admiral  and  of  breaking  down  the  Huguenots'  power  of  re- 
sistance. After  noon  on  Saturday,  she  collected  about  her,  in 
anxious  conclave  in  the  Tuileries,  besides  Anjou,  the  Count 
de  Retz,  the  Chancellor  Birogne,  the  Marshal  de  Tavannes, 
and  the  Duke  de  Nevers ;  three  of  whom  were  Italians  like 
herself,  with  no  scruples  about  assassinating  an  enemy,  and 
with  whom  deceit  and  mystery  lent  an  added  fascination  to 
crime.  With  these  men,  the  Queen  Mother  repaired  to  the 
Louvre,  to  the  cabinet  of  her  son.  There  she  made,  with  all 
her  energy  and  skill,  her  last  and  successful  onset  upon 
him.  She  avowed  her  own  agency,  and  that  of  Anjou,  in 
the  attempt  upon  Coligny.  But  first  she  declared  to  him 
that  the  Huguenots  were  everywhere  arming  to  make  them- 
selves masters  of  the  government ;  that  the  Admiral  was  to 
furnish  6,000  cavalry  and  10,000  Swiss  ;  that  the  Catholics 
in  turn  had  lost  all  patience,  and  would  instantly  combine  in 
a  league  to  supplant  him  and  seize  on  power ;  that  there 
was  no  deliverance  but  in  the  death  of  Coligny,  without 
whom  the  Huguenots  would  be  left  destitute  of  a  leader. 
She  reminded  Charles  of  the  insurrection  when,  at  Meaux, 
they  had  nearly  got  possession  of  his  person — a  recollection 
that  always  excited  his  anger.  Wlien  she  saw  that  he  did 
not  yield  ;  that  he  could  not  bring  himself  to  give  up  Coli- 
gny and  his  friends — La  Eochef oucauld,  Teligni,  and  others — 
she  begged — almost  breathless,  in  her  feigned  despair — that 
she  and  Anjou  might  have  leave  to  withdraw  from  the  ap- 
proaching ruin — to  retire  from  the  court.  To  retire,  as  he 
well  understood,  meant  to  join  themselves  to  the  Catholic 
faction,  soon  to  be  in  arms  against  him.  At  last  she  taunted 
him  with  fear  of  the  Huguenots.  Then  he  gave  up ;  and 
in  the  fury  of  his  vexation,  wild  with  excitement,  bade  them 
kill  not  the  Admiral  alone,  but  all  the  Huguenots  in  France, 
that  none  might  be  left  to  reproach  him.  Such  is  the  state- 
ment of  Henry,  who  thus  attributes  the  general  massacre  to 
the  suggestion  of  the  king.  But  Tavannes — or  the  son  in 
the  memoirs  of  his  father — relates  that  the  recommendation 


THE   MASSACRE   OF    ST.  BARTHOLOMEW.  23 

of  the  council  was  to  slay  all  the  Huguenot  leaders :  he  as- 
serts that  Navarre  and  Conde  were  spared  by  his  own  inter- 
cession. Catherine  must  have  foreseen  that  the  murder  of 
Coligny,  which  could  only  be  effected  by  open  violence, 
would  lead  to  a  general  slaughter,  or  to  a  bloody  encounter 
between  the  forces  of  the  two  parties,  resulting  in  a  great 
loss  of  life.  If  she  did  not  first  recommend  the  general 
massacre,  she  consented  to  the  plot,  and  joined  in  the  execu- 
tion of  it. 

The  plan  being  formed,  the  requisite  orders  were  promptly 
given.  Guise  took  it  in  hand  to  destroy  the  admiral. 
Chanon,  the  Provost  of  Merchants,  and  with  him  Marcel 
his  predecessor,  on  whose  influence  and  cruel  disposition 
more  reliance  was  placed,  were  summoned,  and  commis- 
sioned to  shut  the  gates  of  the  city  so  that  none  could  go 
out  or  come  in,  to  arm  the  people,  and  have  them  in  readi- 
ness in  their  proper  wards.  The  organized  soldiery  were 
conveniently  disposed  under  their  commanders.  A  con- 
spiracy and  threatened  rising  of  the  Huguenots  were  the  pre- 
text for  these  arrangements ;  but  the  soldiers  and  the  leaders 
of  the  mob  needed  no  such  inducement  to  reconcile  them  to 
the  task  of  putting  to  death  the  heretics.  As  the  dawn  ap- 
proached. Guise,  with  the  bastard  Angouleme,  a  son  of 
Henry  H.,  moved  with  a  strong  force  silently  through  the 
streets  to  the  lodgings  of  the  admiral,  where  the  king's 
guards,  who  had  been  stationed  there  for  his  protection,  were 
ready  to  side  with  the  assassins.  Coligny  heard  the  tumult ; 
divined  its  nature ;  calmly  commended  his  soul  to  Christ ; 
told  his  friends  that  he  was  ready  to  die ;  bade  them  es- 
cape, and  was  pierced  with  the  swords  of  the  hired  murder- 
ers who  flung  his  body  from  the  window  upon  the  pave- 
ment, that  Guise  might  be  satisfied  that  the  work  was  com- 
pletely done,  and  trample  on  the  lifeless  hero  whom  he  had 
hated.  Guise  had  ordered  that  every  true  Catholic  should 
tie  a  white  band  upon  his  arm,  and  fasten  a  white  cross  to 
his  hat.     A  distinguished  painter,  Millais,  has  depicted,  in 


24:  THE   MASSACRE    OF    ST.  BARTHOLOMEW. 

"  The  Huguenot  Lover,"  a  scene  that  might  naturally  have 
occurred.  A  maiden,  in  whose  countenance  tenderness  is 
mingled  with  terror,  is  gazing  up  into  the  face  of  her  lover, 
about  whose  arm  she  is  trying  to  bind  a  white  scarf — which 
he  gently  but  firmly  resists.  The  houses  of  the  Huguenots 
were  registered ;  there  was  no  difficulty  in  finding  the  vic- 
tims. 

At  early  dawn  the  great  bell  of  Saint  Germain  1' Auxer- 
rois  tolled  out  the  signal,  and  the  slaughter  began.  Even 
the  hard-hearted  Marshal  Tavannes,  who  superintended  the 
soldiery,  says:  "Blood  and  death  fill  the  streets  with  such 
horror  that  even  their  majesties,  who  were  the  authors  of  it, 
within  the  Louvre  cannot  avoid  fear ;  all  the  Huguenots 
are  indiscriminately  slain,  making  no  defence ;  many  women 
and  children  are  slain  by  the  furious  populace ;  two  thou- 
sand are  massacred."  Catherine  de  Medici  and  her  two  sons 
had  come  to  the  front  of  the  Louvre  "  to  see  the  execution 
commence."  This  same  Tavannes,  with  savage  ferocity, 
cried  to  his  men :  "  Kill,  kill !  bleeding  is  as  good  in  August 
as  in  May ! "  The  Protestant  noblemen  who  were  near 
Coligny,  placed  there  for  his  defence,  were  murdered.  La 
Rochefoucauld,  who  had  spent  the  previous  evening  with 
the  king  until  11  o'clock,  and  whom  Charles  had  tried  to 
detain  for  the  night  in  order  to  save  him,  was  stabbed  to 
the  heart.  Teligui,  Coligny's  son-in-law,  a  man  beloved  by 
all,  was  butchered  by  a  valet  of  Anjou.  Brion,  the  white- 
haired  preceptor  of  the  Marquis  of  Conti,  the  young  brother 
of  Cond^,  was  massacred  in  the  arms  of  the  child,  who 
begged  in  vain  that  the  life  of  his  teacher  might  be  spared. 
Among  the  killed  was  Peter  Ramus,  a  renowned  scholar 
and  philosopher,  who  was  detested  as  a  Protestant  and  as  an 
opponent  of  Aristotle,  and  fell  a  victim  to  the  jealousy  of  his 
rival,  Charpentier.  Private  revenge  and  avarice  seized  on 
the  occasion  to  strike  down  those  who  were  hated,  or  whose 
property  was  coveted. 

Among  the  most  revolting  features  of  the  massacre  were 


THE   MASSACKE   OF    ST.  BARTHOLOMEW.  25 

the  part  taken  by  women  and  children  m  the  work  of  death, 
and  the  brutality  with  which  the  corpses  of  the  dead  were 
mutilated,  and  dragged  through  the  streets.  The  tumult, 
as  a  writer  has  said,  was  like  that  "  of  hell.  The  clanging 
bells,  the  crashing  doors,  the  musket  shots,  the  rush  of  armed 
men,  the  shrieks  of  their  victims,  and  high  over  all  the  yells 
of  the  mob,  fiercer  and  more  pitiless  than  hungry  wolves, 
made  such  an  uproar  that  the  stoutest  hearts  shrank  appalled, 
and  the  sanest  appear  to  have  lost  their  reason."  *  On  the 
evening  before,  Margaret  of  Yalois  had  been  bidden  by  her 
mother  to  retire  to  her  own  room.  Her  sister  Claude 
caught  her  by  the  arm  and  begged  her  not  to  go,  an  inter- 
ference which  Catherine  sharply  rebuked.  "  I  departed," 
says  Margaret,  "  alarmed  and  amazed,  not  knowing  what  I 
had  to  dread."  She  found  the  King  of  JS'avarre's  apart- 
ments filled  with  Huguenot  gentlemen,  talking  of  the  de- 
mand which  they  would  make  of  the  king,  the  next  day,  for 
the  punishment  of  the  Duke  of  Guise.  At  dawn,  her  hus- 
band went  out  with  them  to  the  tennis-court,  to  wait  for 
Charles  to  rise.  She  fell  asleep,  but  an  hour  later  was 
awakened  by  a  man  calling  out,  "iVW^T*/*^,"  '^  NavarreP 
The  nurse  openedt  he  door,  when  a  wounded  gentleman, 
pursued  by  four  soldiers,  rushed  in  and  flung  himself  upon 
her  bed.  She  sprang  up,  followed  by  the  man,  who  still 
clung  to  her — as  it  soon  appeared,  for  protection.  The  cap- 
tain of  the  guards  was  fortunately  at  hand.  He  drove  out 
the  soldiers,  and  the  life  of  the  wounded  man  was  saved. 
The  friends,  guards  and  servants  of  Navarre  and  Conde 
were  slain.  Two  hundred  bodies  lay  under  the  windows  of 
the  palace.  They  were  inspected,  at  a  later  hour,  by  the 
ladies  of  the  court,  who  commented  on  them  with  a  shame- 
less indecency,  that  would  be  incredible  were  it  not  attested 
by  good  evidence.  The  princes  themselves  had  been  sum- 
moned to  the  king's  chamber.     Charles,  excited  to  fury,  de- 

*  Henry  White  :  *'  Massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,"  p.  413. 
3 


26  THE   MASSAOEE   OF    ST.  BARTHOLOMEW. 

manded  of  them  to  abjure  their  heresy.  "  The  mass,  or 
death !  "  he  cried.  Navarre,  politic  though  brave,  reminded 
him  of  his  promises,  and  required  time  to  consider.  Conde 
firmly  refused.  Three  days  were  given  them  in  which  to 
make  their  decision.  They  finally  conformed,  to  save  their 
lives ;  and  these  converts  made  in  this  way  were  graciously 
accepted  by  the  Pope.  In  the  course  of  the  massacre,  there 
were  many  who  narrowly  escaped  death.  A  little  boy,  the 
son  of  La  Force,  saw  his  brother  and  father  killed,  and  lay, 
pretending  to  be  dead,  all  the  day  under  their  bodies,  imtil 
he  heard  from  a  bystander  an  expression  of  pity  for  the 
slain,  to  whom  he  revealed  himself,  and  was  saved.  Sully, 
afterward  prime  minister  of  Henry  IV.,  then  in  his  twelfth 
year,  escaped  almost  by  miracle. 

The  slaughter  once  begun,  could  not  easily  be  stopped. 
Several  days  passed  before  the  scenes  of  robbery  and  mur- 
der came  to  an  end.  Capilupi,  who  wrote  his  account  im- 
mediately after  the  massacre,  under  the  direction  of  the 
Cardinal  of  Lorraine,  referring  to  Sunday,  the  principal  day, 
says:  "It  was  a  holiday,  and  therefore  the  people  could 
more  conveniently  find  leisure  to  kill  and  plunder."  Orders 
were  sent  to  the  other  principal  towns  of  France,  where  the 
massacre  of  the  Huguenots  was  carried  forward  with  like  cir- 
cumstances of  cruelty.  Not  less  than  twenty  thousand  per- 
sons of  both  sexes,  and  of  every  age,  were  killed  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  command  of  the  court. 

On  the  first  evening  after  the  massacre,  the  king  had  sent 
out  messages,  ascribing  the  whole  to  a  conflict  of  the  hostile 
houses  of  Guise  and  Chatillon.  Soon  it  was  found  neces- 
sary, as  well  as  expedient,  to  assume  the  responsibility  for 
the  dreadful  transaction,  and  to  declare  that  the  massacre 
was  made  necessary  by  a  dangerous  conspiracy  (;>f  the  Hugue- 
nots against  the  king  and  government.  To  carry  out  this 
false  pretension,  several  of  the  Huguenot  leaders,  who  had 
escaped  with  their  lives,  were  put  through  the  forms  of  a 
judicial  process,  convicted,  and  executed.     Henry  of  Na- 


THE   MASSACRE   OF    ST.   BARTHOLOMEW.  27 

varre  was  compelled  to  be  one  of  the  spectators  of  the  death 
of  these  innocent  men. 

In  all  Protestant  countries,  the  report  of  the  great  mas- 
sacre called  out  a  feeling  of  unmixed  reprobation  and  hor- 
ror. Burghlej  told  La  Mothe-Fenelon,  the  French  ambassa- 
dor, that  "  the  Paris  massacre  was  the  most  horrible  crime 
which  had  been  committed  since  the  crucifixion  of  Christ." 
John  Knox  said  to  Du  Croc,  the  French  Minister  in  Scot- 
land ;  "  Go,  tell  jour  king,  that  God's  vengeance  shall  never 
depart  from  him  nor  from  his  house  ;  that  his  name  shall 
remain  an  execration  to  posterity  ;  and  that  none  proceed- 
ing from  his  loins  shall  enjoj  the  kingdom  in  peace  unless 
he  repent."  The  Emperor  Maximilian  II.,  Catholic  though 
he  was,  expressed  the  strong  condemnation  which  was  felt 
by  aU  whose  hearts  were  not  hardened  by  sectarian  animos- 
ity. On  the  contrary,  in  Rome  and  in  Madrid,  the  seats  of 
the  Catholic  Reaction,  there  was  joy  and  thanksgiving. 
Philip  II.,  who,  it  is  said,  laughed  aloud  for  the  first  time  in 
his  life,  was  profuse  in  his  congratulations.  The  event  was 
celebrated  at  Rome  by  the  ringing  of  bells,  bonfires,  and 
solemn  processions.  An  inscription  over  the  church  of  St. 
Louis,  where  a  Te  Deum  was  chanted,  described  Charles 
IX.  as  an  avenging  angel,  despatched  from  heaven  to  sweep 
his  kingdom  of  heretics.  A  medal  was  struck  by  Gregory 
XIII.  to  commemorate  the  massacre — bearing  on  one  face 
the  inscription  ^'  Ilugonotoi'urn  Strages^'' — Slaughter  of  the 
Huguenots — together  with  the  figure  of  an  avenging  angel 
engaged  in  destroying  them.  Three  frescoes  were  painted 
by  Yasari  in  the  Vatican,  according  to  the  Pope's  order,  de- 
scribing the  attack  upon  the  Admiral,  the  king  in  his  coun- 
cil plotting  the  massacre,  and  the  massacre  itself.  This 
painting  bears  the  inscription:  Pontifex  Colignii  necem 
jprobat — the  Pope  approves  the  killing  of  Coligny.  It  is 
pretended  by  some  that  the  authorities  at  Rome  were  de- 
ceived by  the  story  of  a  Huguenot  conspiracy  against  the 


28  THE  MASSACRE   OF   ST.  BARTHOLOMEW. 

king's  life,  which  the  massacre  prevented  from  being  car- 
ried out.  But  Charles  did  not  bring  foi-ward  this  story 
until  the  26th  of  August.  On  the  24th,  he  wrote  to  his 
ambassador  at  Rome — Ferraz — that  the  slaughter  resulted 
from  a  conflict  of  the  two  families  of  Guise  and  Chatillon. 
Salviati  himself,  the  Nuncio  of  the  Pope,  said  that  no  per- 
son of  sense  believed  the  tale  of  a  conspiracy.  The  Nun- 
cio's despatches  put  the  Court  of  Rome  in  immediate  pos- 
session of  the  real  facts.  The  Cardinal  of  Lorraine  claimed 
at  Rome  that  the  massacre  was  the  product  of  long  deceit 
and  premeditation.  The  circumstance  that  Muretus,  in  his 
inhuman  panegyric  of  the  murderers,  delivered  in  Rome  four 
months  after  the  event,  charges  a  conspiracy  upon  the  slain 
Huguenots,  does  not  prove  that  anybody  believed  it.  It  is 
probable  that  few,  if  any,  were  deceived  by  the  fiction  of  a 
Huguenot  plot — an  afterthought  of  Catherine  and  the  king. 
The  exultation  at  Rome  and  Madrid  was  over  the  destruc- 
tion of  heretics,  and  the  downfall  of  the  anti-Spanish  party 
in  France.  The  rejoicings  of  the  Yatican  were  kept  up, 
after  the  massacre  at  Paris,  as  the  reports  of  the  continua- 
tion of  the  tragedy  reached  Rome  from  other  parts  of  the 
kingdom.  It  was  simply  a  fanatical  joy  over  the  murder  of 
apostates  from  the  Roman  Catholic  religion. 

The  Massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,  like  the  whole  course 
of  events  in  the  sixteenth  century,  was  due  to  a  mingling  of 
political  and  religious  motives.  It  was  not  political  ambi- 
tion and  rivalry  alone,  nor  was  it  religious  fanaticism  alone, 
that  gave  rise  to  this  terrible  event,  but  both  united.  But 
personal  motives  were,  also,  closely  interwoven  with  these 
agencies.  The  principal,  most  responsible  author  of  the 
crime,  was  Catherine  de  Medici.  It  sprang  out  of  her  jeal- 
ously of  Coligny's  influence,  and  her  fear  of  being  sup- 
planted. Anjou,  her  companion  in  guilt,  was  moved  by  the 
same  inducements.  Their  confederates,  Henry  of  Guise  and 
his  mother,  were  instigated  by  revenge,  mingled  with  the 


THE   MASSACRE   OF    ST.  BARTHOLOMEW.  29 

ambition  and  resentment  of  political  aspirants  who  saw 
themselves  on  the  verge  of  a  downfall.  But  the  insti-ument 
bj  which  these  individuals  accomplished  their  design  was 
the  fanaticism  which  the  reactionary  Catholic  movement  had 
kindled  in  the  populace  and  soldieiy  of  Paris.  It  was  reli- 
ligious  malignity  that  sharpened  their  daggers,  and  found 
vent  in  the  fiendish  yells  that  resounded  through  Paris  on 
that  fearful  night.  The  slaying  of  heretics  had  never  been 
rebuked  by  their  religious  teachers,  but  only  encouraged  and 
applauded.  The  thanksgivings  at  Rome  were  the  proper 
sequel  of  the  exhortations  which  had  been  sent  forth  from 
the  same  seat  of  authority. 

"Was  the  Massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew  contrived  long  be- 
forehand? So  it  was  once  thought.  Davila,  and  other 
Italian  wi'iters,  declared  this  to  be  the  fact.  To  them,  the 
event  would  have  been  shorn  of  a  great  part  of  its  interest, 
if  it  did  not  occur  as  the  result  of  a  long  and  intricate  plot. 
Even  the  authors  of  the  crime,  to  account  for  the  sudden  re- 
versal of  their  attitude  toward  Spain  and  for  their  previous 
acts  of  hostility  against  Philip,  were  willing  to  countenance 
this  interpretation  of  their  conduct.  The  Huguenots,  on 
whom  the  blow  fell  like  a  thunderbolt,  and  who  had  a  right 
to  consider  those  murderers  of  St.  Bartholomew  capable  of 
infinite  falsehood,  naturally  took  this  view.  The  treaty  of 
St.  Germain,  the  marriage  of  Navarre,  the  collecting  of  the 
Huguenot  leaders  in  Paris,  the  offensive  demonstrations  in 
the  Low  Countries,  were  elements  in  a  diabolical  scheme  for 
their  destruction.  Yet  this  theory  was  undoubtedly  errone- 
ous. Philip  and  Alva  had  been  right  in  expecting  a  war 
with  France.  JS'ot  only  the  Navarre  marriage,  but  the  ne- 
gotiations with  Elizabeth  respecting  marriages  and  an  alli- 
ance, were  undertaken  with  a  sincere  intent  on  the  part  of 
Charles  IX.  and  Catherine.  The  theory  of  a  long  premedi- 
tation of  the  great  crime,  and  that  all  these  transactions, 
stretching  over  two  years,  were  steps  in  a  deep-laid  plot,  is 
confuted  by  an  irresistible  amount  of  circumstantial  evidence, 


30 


THE  MASSACRE   OF   ST.  BARTHOLOMEW. 


and  by  the  authentic  testimony  of  Tavannes  and  Anjou, 
chief  actors  in  the  tragedy.  The  spell  which  Coligny  had 
cast  upon  the  mind  of  the  king,  whom  he  had  impressed  so 
far  as  to  persuade  him  to  enter  into  war,  was  what  deter- 
mined Catherine  de  Medici  to  bring  about  the  death  of  the 
Admiral  by  the  agency  of  the  Guises.  She  probably  antici- 
pated that  vengeance  would  be  taken  by  the  Huguenots  upon 
these  leaders  of  the  Catholic  faction  ;  but  for  that  she  did 
not  care.  The  fall  of  the  leaders  on  both  sides  would 
strengthen  her  power.  When  the  Admiral  was  wounded, 
instead  of  being  killed ;  when  she  saw  that  he  survived  with 
undiminished  and  even  increased  influence,  and  that  her  and 
Anjou's  complicity  in  the  attempt  could  not  be  concealed,  she 
struck  out  another  programme. 

All  this  appears  to  be  established  by  conclusive  proofs. 
And  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  facts  going  to  show 
that  the  thought  of  cutting  off  the  Huguenot  leaders  had 
long  haunted  Catherine's  mind ;  and  that  she  even  shaped 
the  course  of  events  in  such  a  way  as  to  enable  her,  if  she 
found  it  expedient,  to  convert  this  thought  into  a  definite 
purpose,  and  to  carry  it  out  in  the  deed. 

The  destruction  of  the  Huguenot  chiefs,  as  a  means  of 
paralyzing  and  crushing  their  party,  had  been  recommended 
to  her  by  Philip  as  early  as  1560.  At  Bayonne,  Alva  had 
given  her  the  same  counsel.  He  had  himself  acted  on  his 
theory  in  the  treacherous  seizure  and  execution  of  Egmont 
and  Horn.  These  things  must  have  made  the  idea  familiar 
to  Catherine.  In  15Y0,  the  Yenetian  Ambassador  says  that 
it  was  generally  thought  that  it  would  be  enough  to  strike 
off  five  or  six  heads.  It  is,  at  least,  a  curious  coincidence, 
that  Catherine  declared,  after  the  massacre,  that  she  took 
on  herself  the  guilt  of  the  murder  of  only  six.  It  was 
Catherine  who  insisted  that  the  wedding  of  Navarre  should 
be  at  Paris.  Other  points  she  was  willing  to  waive ;  but 
not  this.  What  was  her  motive,  unless  it  was  to  collect  the 
Huguenots  in  a  place  where  they  would  be  in  her  power  ? 


THE   MASSACRE   OF    ST.  BARTHOLOMEW.  81 

In  January,  1572,  the  Papal  Legate  wi-ote  to  Rome,  that  he 
had  failed  in  all  his  efforts ;  yet  there  were  some  things, 
which  he  conld  only  verbally  report,  which  were  not  wholly 
imfavorable.  Cardinal  Salviati,  a  Florentine,  a  relative  of 
the  Medici,  and  intimate  with  Catherine,  had  informed  Pius 
Y.  that  there  was  a  secret  plan  favorable  to  the  Catholics. 
After  the  massacre,  Catherine  reminded  the  Nuncio  of  the 
word  that  she  had  sent  to  the  Pope,  that  he  would  see  how 
she  and  her  son  would  avenge  themselves  on  the  Huguenots. 
Facts  of  this  nature  appear  to  contradict  the  conclusion  to 
which  the  general  current  of  evidence  leads  us.  They  jus- 
tify the  inference,  not  that  Catherine  had  resolved  upon  the 
deed,  but  that  she  was  glad,  even  while  pursuing  an  oppo- 
site policy,  to  provide  herself  with  the  means  of  doing  it. 
Other  princes  of  that  day — Queen  Elizabeth,  for  example — 
were  fond  of  having  two  strings  to  their  bow.  While  pur- 
suing one  policy,  Elizabeth  was  fond  of  holding  in  her  hand 
the  threads  of  another  and  opposite  line  of  conduct.  In 
this  double  intent  of  Catherine  de  Medici,  we  are  presented, 
as  Ranke  has  said,  with  a  psychological  problem,  such  as 
one  occasionally  meets  with  in  historical  study.  It  is  like 
the  question  of  Mary  Stuart's  participation  in  the  murder  of 
Darnley.  These  are  problems  which  the  philosopher  and 
the  poet  are  most  competent  to  solve.  They  require,  as  the 
same  great  historian  has  said,  an  insight  into  the  deep  and 
complicated  springs  of  action  in  the  soul — the  profound 
"abysses  where  the  storms  of  passion  rage,"  and  where 
strange  and  appalling  crimes  have  their  birth.  It  would 
seem  as  if,  in  the  brain  of  this  devilish  woman,  whose  depth 
of  deceit  she  herself  could  hardly  fathom,  there  were  weav- 
ing at  once  two  plots.  While  she  was  moving  on  one  path, 
she  was  secretly  making  ready,  should  the  occasion  arise, 
to  spring  to  another.  If  all  should  go  well  in  amity  with 
the  Huguenots,  she  would  be  content ;  but  if  not,  they  would 
be  helpless  in  her  hands.  Not  only  was  she  double-tongued, 
but  she  was  double-minded ;  there  was  duplicity  in  her  in- 


32  THE  MASSACRE   OF   ST.  BARTHOLOMEW. 

most  thoughts  and  designs.  But  this  occult  thought,  which 
finally  developed  into  purpose  and  act,  was  confined  to  her- 
self. The  king  had  no  share  in  it.  Like  Pilate,  he  gave 
consent.  His  crime  was  that  he  yielded  to  the  pressure 
brought  upon  him  by  his  inhuman  mother  and  her  confeder- 
ates, and  authorized  a  crime  a  parallel  to  which  can  be  found 
only  by  going  back  of  all  Christian  ages,  to  the  bloody  pro- 
scriptions of  heathen  Rome.* 

It  is  interesting  to  glance  at  the  fate  of  the  authors  of  the 
massacre.  Less  than  two  years  after,  on  the  30th  of  May, 
1574,  Charles  IX.  died.  On  his  death-bed,  his  brief  inter- 
vals of  sleep  were  disturbed  by  horrible  visions.  He  suffered 
from  violent  hemorrhages,  and  sometimes  awoke  bathed  in 
blood,  which  recalled  to  his  mind  the  torrents  of  blood  shed 
by  his  orders  on  that  dreadful  night.  In  his  dreams  he  be- 
held the  bodies  of  the  dead  floating  upon  the  Seine,  and 
heard  their  agonizing  cries.  Anjou — Henry  III. — more 
guilty  than  he,  mounted  the  throne.  But  Guise,  his  rival, 
the  idol  of  the  League,  stole  away  the  hearts  of  the  people. 
He  enjoyed  the  reality  of  power,  and  there  was  danger  that 
he  might  get  the  crown  too.  On  the  23d  of  September, 
1588,  in  the  chateau  of  Blois,  where  the  Estates  were  assem- 
bled, Henry  of  Guise  was  invited  to  the  cabinet  of  the  king. 
As  he  crossed  the  threshold,  by  the  order  of  Henry  HI.  he 
was  stabbed  and  thrown  down  by  men  belonging  to  the 
king's  body-guard,  and  after  a  short  but  desperate  resistance, 
was  killed  at  the  foot  of  the  king's  bed.     The  Cardinal  of 

*  On  the  question  whether  the  massacre  had  been  planned  long  before, 
there  are  three  opinions.  That  it  was  so  planned  is  maintained,  among 
others,  in  an  elaborate  argument  by  Sir  James  Mackintosh,  in  his  History 
of  England^  vol.  iii.  That  there  was  no  such  premeditation  is,  at  pres- 
ent, the  more  general  opinion.  It  is  clearly  set  forth  by  Professor  Baird, 
in  his  recent  History  of  the  Rise  of  the  Huguenots.  The  middle  view 
which  attributes  to  the  Queen  Mother  a  dual  plot,  is  that  maintained  by 
Ranke,  and  appears  to  me  to  match  best  the  evidence,  collectively  taken. 
Extracts  from  Salviati's  despatches,  as  copied  by  Chateaubriand,  are  in 
the  Appendix  of  Mackintosh,  vol.  iiL 


THE   MASSACRE    OF    ST.    BARTHOLOMEW.  33 

Lorraine,  the  brother  of  Guise,  was  seized  and  executed. 
The  Cardinal  of  Bourbon  was  placed  under  arrest.  Cathe- 
rine de  Medici  was  at  this  time  laboring  under  a  mortal  ill- 
ness. Her  son  had  renounced  her  counsels,  power  had 
slipped  from  her  hands,  and  she  had  become  an  object  of 
general  aversion  and  contempt.  Her  apartment  was  directly 
under  that  in  which  Guise  had  been  struck  down,  and  the 
sounds  of  the  deadly  struggle  reached  her  ears.  When  she 
learned  what  had  occurred,  she  saw  that  the  murder  boded 
no  good  to  the  king.  She  rallied  her  strength  and  visited 
the  Cardinal  of  Bourbon.  He  charged  everything  upon 
her ;  she  could  not  rest,  he  told  her,  until  she  had  brought 
all  to  the  slaughter.  In  this  scene,  pale  and  haggard — like 
the  wife  of  Macbeth,  "  troubled  with  thick-coming  fancies 
that  keep  her  from  her  rest " — she  appears  on  the  stage  for 
the  last  time.  In  full  view  of  the  danger  that  impended 
over  her  son,  and  of  the  ruin  of  her  house,  she  expired. 
Soon  Henry  III.  w^as  obliged  to  fly  from  the  anathemas  of 
the  Sorbonne,  and  the  wrath  of  the  League,  to  the  camp  of 
Henry  lY.  There,  on  the  1st  of  August,  1589,  a  fanatical 
Dominican  priest,  Clement,  by  name,  came  to  him,  pretend- 
ing to  have  secrets  of  importance  to  communicate.  The 
king  bent  his  ear  to  listen,  but  was  immediately  heard  to 
cry  out :  "  Ah !  the  villainous  monk — he  has  killed  me  !  " 
Clement  had  drawn  a  knife  from  his  sleeve  and  buried  it  in 
his  body.  Henry  lingered  for  eighteen  hours  ;  and  then  the 
last  of  the  four  principal  conspirators  who  planned  the  Mas- 
sacre of  St.  Bartholomew,  and  the  last  king  of  the  line  of 
Yalois,  died. 


34:  THE   OLD   KOMAN    SPIRIT   AND   RELIGION 


THE   OLD  ROMAN   SPIRIT  AND  RELIGION  IN 
LATIN   CHRISTIANITY.* 

Ancient  Christianity  passed  through  three  consecutive 
stages  :  it  was  first  Jewish,  then  Greek,  then  Latin.  Greek 
Christianity  and  Latin  Christianity  each  became  permanent, 
but  diverged  from  one  another,  and  grew  at  length  to  be 
distinct.  Each  of  these  types  of  Christianity  planted  itself 
among  new  nations,  and  imderwent  a  development  of  its 
own — in  the  case  of  Latin  Christianity,  a  development  full 
of  vitality,  and  entering  as  a  prime  element  into  the  growth 
of  European  civilization. 

Christianity  was  at  first  of  necessity  Jewish.  Its  founders 
were  of  that  nation.  It  had  an  organic  connection  with  the 
religion  and  life  of  the  Hebrew  people.  Jerusalem  was  the 
metropolis  of  the  church  in  the  apostolic  age.  It  still  re- 
mained '^  the  Holy  City."  Thither  the  apostles  resorted  as 
to  a  common  hearth-stone,  and  there  one  or  more  of  them 
almost  constantly  resided.  To  the  church  at  Jerusalem  per- 
plexed and  disputed  questions,  like  that  of  the  requirements 
to  be  made  of  gentile  converts,  were  naturally  brought. 
There  was  the  mother-church,  to  which  tile  Christians  scat- 
tered abroad  turned  with  somewhat  of  the  samQ  feeling  with 
which  the  Jewish  diaspora  had  looked  to  their  Judean 
brethren.  To  that  church  the  apostle  to  the  gentiles,  tena- 
cious as  he  was  of  his  independence,  chose  to  carry  reports 
of  his  missionary  labors,  and  to  manifest  his  loyal  regard  by 
bringing  to  it  from  afar  contributions  of  money  for  the  re- 
lief of  the  poor. 

*  An  Article  in  The  Princeton  Review  for  January,  1880. 


IN   LATIN   CHRISTIANITY.  35 

But  Christianity  rapidly  passed  beyond  the  Jewish  period. 
An  Asiatic  religion  in  its  origin,  it  was  destined  to  find  the 
most  hospital  welcome  and  most  secure  abode  in  Europe. 
The  gentile  converts  rapidly  preponderated  in  number  over 
the  Jewish.  The  obsolescent  character  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment rites  was  more  and  more  clearly  discerned.  .  Circum- 
cision and  sacrifice  were  seen  to  be  things  of  the  past,  and 
national  privileges  and  distinctions  melted  away  in  propor- 
tion as  the  spiritual  and  universal  character  of  the  Gospel — a 
religion  not  for  the  Jew  only,  but  for  man — ^was  distinctly 
perceived.  The  crushing  of  the  Jewish  nationality  by  the 
overwhelming  powder  of  the  Romans  precipitated  the  com- 
pletion of  the  great  change.  The  soldier  of  Titus  who,  on 
the  15th  of  July  in  the  year  70,  flung  a  blazing  brand  into 
the  Temple,  was  an  unconscious  instrument  of  Providence 
for  breaking  up  the  Judaic  centre  of  Christianity.  That  act 
was  a  signal  of  a  new  order  of  things,  marking  the  dissolu- 
tion of  the  bond  which  held  the  church  in  a  certain  depen- 
dent relation  to  Jewish  Christianity. 

For  the  century  that  followed  the  capture  of  Jerusalem 
by  Titus  and  the  death  of  Paul  and  of  Peter,  Christianity 
was  everywhere  predominantly  Greek.  The  canonical  gos- 
pels, with  the  possible  exception  of  the  first,  were  written  in 
that  language,  and  the  Hebrew  original  of  Matthew  was 
early  superseded  by  a  Greek  edition  of  that  gospel.  The 
apostles  wrote  their  epistles  in  that  cosmopolitan  language, 
the  common  vehicle  of  communication  wherever  they  went. 
Religious  services,  even  among  the  Christians  at  Rome,  were 
in  the  Greek  tongue.  Tlieological  discussion  was  canied 
forward  almost  exclusively  by  Greeks.  It  was  long  before 
any  important  writer  of  Latin  extraction,  or  employing  the 
Latin  in  his  works,  appeared.  I^ot  only  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, and  Origen  after  him,  but  Justin  Martyr,  the  most 
conspicuous  of  the  Apologists  of  the  second  century,  and 
Irenseus,  who  was  born  in  Asia  Minor,  but  was  a  bishop  at 
Lyons  and  the  most  eminent  literary  adversary  of  Gnostic 


IVC  ^      o^ 


i4  » ».\  \ 


36  THE   OLD    ROMAN    SPIRIT    AND    RELIGION 

heresies  in  that  period,  were  Greek  writers.  The  first  theo- 
logical author  of  note  who  wrote  in  Latin  was  the  North 
African  father,  Tertullian,  early  in  the  third  centuiy.  His 
style,  though  its  peculiar  roughness  springs  in  part  from  his 
impetuous  fervor  and  the  hru^querie  of  his  temper,  shows 
how  ill-adapted  the  Latin  was  to  serve  as  a  medium  for 
Christian  thought  and  for  theological  debate,  compared  with 
that  flexible  and  subtle  language  in  which  the  truths  of  the 
Gospel  had  before  been  incorporated.  Theological  activity 
in  the  early  centuries  continued  predominantly  on  the  Greek 
side.  The  discussions  of  the  Trinity  and  of  the  person  of 
Christ,  which  gave  rise  to  the  great  councils  of  Nicea,  Con- 
stantinople, and  Chalcedon,  were  carried  forward  in  the  East. 
When  Alexandria,  Antioch,  Ephesus,  and  the  other  cities  of 
the  East  resounded  with  the  din  of  theological  strife,  the 
West  was,  for  the  most  part,  little  more  than  a  passive  spec- 
tator of  the  conflict.  All  the  while,  however,  Latin  Chris- 
tianity was  growing  up  into  distinct  life,  and  the  Koman 
See  was  gathering  to  itself  power.  Whilst  the  East  was 
spending  its  energies  in  warfare  upon  the  profound  and  in- 
tricate themes  of  speculative  theology,  the  West  was  cement- 
ing its  polity,  and  quietly  accepted  every  opportunity  to  aug- 
ment the  authority  of  its  chief  bishop.  One  means  of  the 
advancement  of  his  power  was  the  consideration  with  which 
he  was  regarded  by  the  discordant  parties,  who  not  unfre- 
quently,  from  motives  of  policy,  vied  with  one  another  in 
efforts  to  win  his  countenance  and  support. 

During  this  whole  formative  period,  and  down  to  the  ex- 
tinction of  paganism,  the  church  was  exposed  to  heathen  in- 
fluences. Christianity,  to  be  sure,  was  from  the  first  aggres- 
sive. There  was  a  perpetual  conflict  between  the  new  faith 
and  the  devotees  of  the  old  religion.  The  Gospel  was  to  act 
as  a  leaven  in  the  midst  of  pagan  society,  rejecting  what  was 
evil,  and  permeating  and  preserving  what  was  right  and  in- 
nocent. But  what  security  was  there  that  the  discrimination 
would  always  be  correctly  made  ?     If  there  was  asceticism 


IN    LA'l'IN    CHKISTIANITY.  37 

on  the  one  hand,  might  there  not  arise  a  lax  liberalism,  an 
unwarrantable  accommodation  and  indulgence,  on  the  other  ? 
The  disciples  were  not  taken  out  of  the  world  ;  would  they 
be  wholly  kept  from  the  evil  that  is  in  it?  Would  not 
heathenism,  which  was  entwined  with  every  institution  of 
society,  which  in  a  thousand  forms  confronted  the  Christian 
fi'om  his  infancy  to  old  age,  which  had  inwoven  itself,  so 
to' speak,  in  the  whole  texture  of  life,  succeed  in  silently  in- 
fusing something  of  its  spirit,  its  beliefs,  and  its  customs  into 
the  Christian  community  ?  Would  the  Christian  creed  be 
maintained  incorrupt  ?  Would  Christian  worship  keep  up 
its  pure,  spiritual  character  ?  Would  Christian  conduct  be 
kept  free  from  the  demoralizing  effect  of  heathen  education 
and  example  ?  If  we  find  traces  of  paganism  in  ancient 
Christianity,  there  is  no  occasion  for  wonder,  and  it  is  no 
just  ground  of  reproach  against  Christianity  itself.  Rather 
does  the  Gospel  show  its  intrinsic  vitality  in  not  being  stifled 
by  doctrines  and  ceremonies  heaped  upon  it,  though  alien  to 
its  nature,  and  in  eventually  proving  itself  sufficient  to 
purify  itself  of  these  foreign,  corrupt  elements,  thus  regain- 
ing its  native  purity. 

The  church  was  far  more  exposed  to  the  infection  of 
heathen  opinions  and  practices  after  it  grew  in  numbers,  and 
especially  after  the  conversion  of  Constantino,  when  it  be- 
came dominant,  and  remained,  save  during  the  brief  period 
of  Julian's  reign,  the  religion  of  the  empire.  In  the  first 
three  centuries,  the  martyr-age  of  the  church,  it  stood  forth 
as  a  persecuted  sect,  and  was  far  less  likely  to  catch  the  spirit 
or  imitate  the  ways  of  the  worshippers  by  whom  it  was  sub- 
jected to  imprisonment,  torture,  and  death,  either  by  the  in- 
strumentality of  magistrates,  or  because  left  by  them  a  victim 
to  the  violence  of  fanatical  mobs.  In  the  field  of  theology 
the  church  had  early  roused  itself  against  the  swarm  of  he- 
resiarchs  and  heretical  sects  which  sought  to  amalgamate 
Christianity  with  Greek  speculation  and  the  fantastic  dreams 
of  Oriental  philosophy.     The  battle  with  Gnosticism  was 


38  THE    OLD   SOMAN    SPIRIT    AND   BELIGION 

fouglit  and  won.  Judaizing  Christianity  had  likewise  re- 
ceived its  death-blow,  and  its  pertinacious  votaries,  pushed 
outside  the  pale  of  orthodoxy,  had  been  left  to  prolong  their 
existence  as  isolated,  heterodox  parties.  It  must  not  be  for- 
gotten that  heathenism  was  virtually  overcome,  the  complete 
triumph  of  Christianity  was  insured,  before  the  faith  and 
worship  of  Christians  had'  undergone  essential  depravation 
through  the  retroactive  influence  of  paganism.  Compara- 
tively speaking  the  first  three  centuries  were  pure.  The 
victory  of  the  Gospel  was  practically  achieved  by  legitimate 
means.  It  was  a  victory  fairly  won.  It  was  not  by  incau- 
tious compromise,  it  was  not  by  timid  surrender,  that  the 
Christian  religion  gained  that  firm  footing  in  the  Roman 
world  from  which  it  could  not  have  been  dislodged.  The 
old  religion  was  put  on  the  road  to  extinction  in  the  better 
and  purer  era  which  followed  the  first  introduction  and  dis- 
semination of  the  Gospel.  The  fourth  and  fifth  centuries 
are  the  period  when  the  baleful  influence  of  heathenism  was 
chiefly  felt ;  and  it  was  during  this  period  that  tendencies 
in  the  wrong  direction,  which,  so  far  as  they  had  existed 
previously,  were  kept  within  bounds,  attained  to  a  rank  de- 
velopment. Constantine  himself,  in  the  mingling  of  Chris- 
tian and  heathen  opinions,  tempers,  and  practices — the  ad- 
mixture of  gospel  faith  and  pagan  superstition — which  be- 
longed to  his  character,  was  no  unfit  type  of  the  mixed  sys- 
tem which  both  his  personal  example  and  public  policy 
tended  to  foster.  It  was  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries 
that  the  rage  for  ecclesiastical  miracles  manifested  itself. 
Then  these  supposed  miracles  were  multiplied  far  beyond 
anything  of  the  kind  in  the  preceding  period.  This  single 
feature  of  these  later  centuries  may  be  taken  as  one  sign  of 
the  altered  temper  of  the  church.  After  the  emperors  pro- 
fessed Christianity,  it  became  popular  with  the  indifferent 
and  self-seeking,  who  found  their  profit  in  adopting  the  re- 
ligion of  the  cross.  The  inducements  held  out  to  produce 
conversion,  in  the  shape  of  court  patronage,   offices,   and 


IN  LATIN   CHRISTIANITY.  39 

other  mercenary  appeals,  brought  into  the  church  a  multi- 
tude of  insincere  or  selfish  proselytes.  The  ambition  to 
swell  the  ranks  of  the  baptized,  stimulated  many  to  make 
concessions  to  heathen  tastes  and  preferences,  and  to  pur- 
chase a  superficial  adhesion  by  a  toleration  of  pagan  customs, 
or  by  the  introduction  of  usages  not  dissimilar  to  them.  To 
not  a  few  an  immediate,  seeming  success  was  more  attrac- 
tive than  a  slower  but  more  thorough  advance.  As  the 
dread  of  heathen  opposition  passed  away,  the  teachers  of 
Christianity  grew  less  vigilant,  and  concessions  were  insensi- 
bly made,  such  as  threats  and  violence  had  not  been  able  to 
extort.  It  was  far  more  easy  to  withstand  a  direct  attack 
than  an  infection. 

In  treating  of  the  influence  of  heathenism  upon  the 
church,  several  cautions  are  requisite  :  ' 

1.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  similitude  in  the  case  of  reli- 
gious phenomena  does  not  always  imply  identity  of  origin. 
Beliefs,  ceremonies,  may  exhibit  a  striking  resemblance 
where  there  is  no  genetic  connection.  It  is  often  rash  to 
infer  that  an  opinion  or  rite  is  derived  from  a  particular 
quarter  simply  on  the  ground  of  likeness.  The  common 
source  may  be  in  impulses  of  human  nature  itself.  The 
generic  qualities  of  man  being  the  same  in  all  times  and  in 
every  latitude,  it  would  be  surprising  if  in  the  religious 
sphere,  as  elsewhere,  there  should  not  frequently  be  a 
marked  likeness  in  the  actions  of  the  human  mind,  whether 
the  spring  of  them  be  sound  or  corrupt.  The  historical 
student  perpetually  meets  with  similar  religious  phenomena, 
with  opinions,  sects,  and  rites,  in  places  and  times  remote 
from  one  another,  and  under  circumstances  where  no  com- 
munication can  possibly  be  assumed.  In  the  same  commu- 
nity such  phenomena  may  arise  independently.  There  may 
be  an  epidemic  where  there  is  no  contagion.  No  one  famil- 
iar with  the  history  of  religion  can  inspect  a  village  of 
Shakers,  in  Massachusetts,  without  being  reminded  of  other 
societies,  such  as  the  Jewish  Essenes,  the  Egj^tian  Thera- 


40  THE   OLD    ROMAN    SPIRIT   AND   RELIGION 

peutse,  and  numerous  widely-scattered  monastic  communi- 
ties which  have  existed  under  the  shield  of  the  church  or  in 
the  ancient  ethnic  religions  of  the  East.  Yet  there  is  no 
genetic  bond  between  these  modern  sects  in  Kew  England 
and  the  various  communities  referred  to.  The  same  impulses 
of  human  nature  which  generated  any  one  of  these  commu- 
nistic societies  might  give  birth  to  any  other.  The  Oxford 
Tractarian  movement  of  the  present  century — to  take  an- 
other illustration — was  Judaizing  in  its  spirit.  Dr.  Arnold 
saw  in  it  the  very  thing  which  the  Apostle  Paul  denounced  in 
the  Epistles  to  the  Galatians  and  Colossians.  There  was  the 
same  misconception  of  the  Gospel,  the  same  attempt  to  amal- 
gamate with  it  heterogeneous  principles.  Yet  the  leaders 
of  Puseyism  stood  in  no  direct  line  of  connection  with  the 
Judaizing  party  which  gave  Paul  so  much  trouble.  Those 
leaders  did  not  learn  their  lesson,  they  did  not  borrow  their 
distinguishing  tenets,  from  their  ancient  prototypes.  Ten- 
dencies of  the  mind  which  were  rife  in  the  early  days  of 
Christianity  revived  and  bore  their  natural  fruit  indepen- 
dently, and  under  circumstances  quite  different.  Whately 
wrote  a  book  in  which  he  traced,  with  his  usual  sagacity, 
the  corruptions  of  Pomanism  to  their  origin  in  certain  ap- 
petencies of  human  nature. 

2.  The  points  in  which  the  church  in  the  patristic  age 
departed  from  the  spirit  of  primitive  Christianity  result  not 
wholly  from  the  influence  of  heathenism,  but  in  an  impor- 
tant degree  from  the  adoption  of  characteristic  principles  of 
the  ancient  Jewish  Church.  Poman  Catholicism  is,  in  some 
essential  features,  a  return  to  the  old  dispensation.  It  is  a 
restoration  of  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  religion  which  the 
Gospel  abolished.  These  discarded  elements,  outgrown  in 
the  later  stage  of  Pevelation,  and  giving  way  in  the  'Gospel 
to  something  better,  insensibly  came  back  and  incorporated 
themselves  in  the  conceptions  of  Christian  people  and  in  the 
institutions  of  the  church.  This  is  eminently  true  of  the 
prime  corruption  of  Christianity,  the  doctrine  of  a  special 


IN   LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  4:1 

mediatorial  priesthood — a  class  of  heaven-appointed  inter- 
cessors, and  almoners  of  divine  grace.  Peter,  in  whom  hier- 
archical supremacy  is  supposed  to  have  first  inhered,  and  by 
whom  it  is  thought  to  have  been  transmitted  to  the  succes- 
sive bishops  of  Rome,  himself  styled  his  fellow-disciples 
generally  "  a  chosen  generation,  a  royal  po'iesthood,  a  pecu- 
liar people,"  whose  office  and  privilege  it  was  to  celebrate 
the  praises  of  God  (1  Peter,  ii.  9).  This  distinction  of  an 
immediate  access  to  God- which  of  old  had  belonged  exclu- 
sively to  the  priests  who  ministered  in  the  Temple,  was 
made  by  Christ  the  prerogative  of  all  believers.  But  more 
and  more,  as  the  church  receded  from  the  apostolic  age,  and 
the  absolutely  gratuitous  character  of  forgiveness  became 
obscured,  the  instinctive  craving  for  priestly  mediation  led 
to  a  perversion  of  the  Gospel,  to  the  surrender  of  the  exalted 
distinction  conferred  on  all  Christians,  and  to  the  imputation 
to  the  clergy  of  an  ofiice  analogous  to  that  of  the  Aaronic 
order.  The  ramifications  of  this  erroneous  idea,  securing 
thus  a  lodgement  in  the  Christian  mind,  were  far-reaching. 
Its  effects  on  the  constitution  of  the  church,  on  the  preroga- 
tives of  the  ministry,  and  on  Christian  worship  and  life,  were 
grave  and  enduring.  Now  this  revolution,  silently  accom- 
plished in  the  first  centuries,  was,  as  I  have  said.  Judaic  in 
its  character.  Not  that  it  was  due  to  the  conscious  efforts 
of  a  Judaizing  party,  existing  by  itself  and  deliberately  pur- 
suing this  end.  The  Judaizers,  whose  explicit  effort  it  was 
to  assimilate  Christianity  to  the  Old  Testament  system,  had 
been  foiled.  They  had  been  vanquished.  Pauline  Chris- 
tianity gained  the  ascendancy  over  its  adversaries.  The 
authority  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  the  second  century  as  well 
as  in  the  third,  was  held  in  due  respect  by  the  churches,  and 
was  disparaged  only  by  sectaries  and  factions.  But  the 
Judaic  transformation  of  which  we  are  speaking  crept  in 
after  this  first  great  contest  had  been  decided  and  the  right 
side  had  triumphed.  It  arose  in  connection  with  a  grad- 
ual transformation  of  theology  in  a  legal  direction,  and  as  a 


4b:s  THE   OLD   EOMAN   SPIRIT  AlTD   RELIGION 

consequence  of  tlie  quiet  but  powerful  operation  of  general 
causes.  The  Old  Testament  Scriptures  were  in  the  hands  of 
the  early  Christians.  They  were  read  in  the  churches.  They 
were  quoted — at  first  with  more  verbal  accuracy  than  the 
writings  of  the  apostles.  The  *  relation  of  Christ  to  Moses, 
of  the  new  dispensation  to  the  old,  was  not  accurately  de- 
fined. Even  now  Christian  theologians  do  not  always  agree' 
in  formulating  this  relation.  The  Gnostics  had  assaulted 
the  Old  Testament,  and  disparaged  the  ancient  church  and 
religion  with  which  the  Gospel  was  known  and  felt  to  be 
somehow  organically  connected.  These  circumstances,  how- 
ever, would  have  been  quite  insufficient  to  produce  the  revo- 
lution to  which  we  have  adverted,  had  not  the  natural, 
spontaneous  desire  of  human,  visible  mediation  rendered 
the  notion  of  a  special  priesthood  congenial  to  the  minds  of 
men.-  The  elevation  of  the  ministry  to  the  rank  of  a  priest- 
hood did  not  arise,  then,  from  a  formal  usurpation  on  their 
own  part.  It  w^as  due  mainly  to  a  willing  descent  of  the 
people  to  a  lower  plane  of  religion,  which  was  guided  and 
accelerated  by  the  example  of  the  system  that  w^as  present 
to  their  eyes  on  the  pages  of  the  ancient  Scriptures.  The 
classical  heathenism,  therefore,  is  only  in  a  very  limited  de- 
gree responsible  for  the  intrusion  of  this  idea,  so  portentous 
in  its  bearing  on  the  history  of  the  Christian  church. 

3.  It  is  not  to  be  inferred  forthwith  that  everything  which 
the  church  took  up  from  the  environment  in  which  it  was 
placed  was  of  the  nature  of  corruption.  The  theory  of  de- 
velopment, as  it  is  expounded  by  Dr.  Kewman,  although  it 
requires  much  correction  and  qualification,  contains  in  it  a 
kernel  of  valuable  truth.  Christianity  and  the  church  w^ere 
not  something  absolutely  fixed  and  immovable  within  limits 
set  about  them  at  the  start.  Christianity  was  to  unfold  its 
contents  in  contact  with  humanity,  and  to  stamp  wdth  its 
approval  whatever  was  true  and  good  in  the  thinking  and  life 
of  the  communities  into  which  it  was  to  enter,  and  which  it 
was  to  leaven  with  its  spirit.     The  church  was  not  rigidly 


IN   LATIN   CHRISTIANITY.  43 

shut  lip  to  an  inflexible  method  of  polity  or  to  an  established 
round  of  worship.  It  might  lawfully  adapt  itself  to  nation- 
al peculiarities ;  it  might  conform  itself  to  all  the  varying 
circumstances  in  the  midst  of  which  it  was  to  do  its  work. 
That  work  was  to  regenerate,  not  to  extinguish,  humanity. 
The  truth  on  this  subject  seems  to  be  that  development  must 
take  place,  if  it  take  place  aright,  on  the  lines  sanctioned  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  also  that  on  these  lines  nothing 
must  be  pushed  to  excess.  Mozley,  in  his  acute  review  of 
Newman's  Essay,  has  shown  that  the  natural  tendency  to  ex- 
aggeration and  excess  is  sufficient  of  itself  to  engender  cor- 
ruption if  this  tendency  is  not  held  in  check.  It  is  not  suffi- 
cient that  a  particular  sentiment  is  in  itself  innocent;  it 
becomes  evil  and  dangerous  the  moment  it  is  pushed  into 
undue  prominence  or  allowed  to  expand  itself  beyond  meas- 
ure. There  is  a  source  of  corruption  which  is  distinct  from 
the  mingling  of  false  ideas — germs  intrinsically  pernicious. 
For  example,  the  worship  of  the  Virgin,  which  we  find  in 
the  church  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  may  be  called, 
and  is  called  by  Dr.  Newman,  the  development  of  the  senti- 
ments entertained  towards  Mary  by  the  early  Christians,  by 
whom  she  was  regarded  as  the  most  blessed  of  women. 
But  was  it  not  an  excessive,  an  unhealthy,  a  pernicious  ex- 
pansion of  a  feeling  which  was  right  and  wholesome  only 
when  kept  within  a  definite  limit  ?  Rashness  may  be  caUed 
a  development  of  courage,  foolhardiness  and  audacity  the 
offshoot  of  boldness,  timidity  the  product  of  prudence, 
stinginess  of  frugality,  etc.  There  are  many  plants  which 
need  to  be  trimmed,  and  whose  growth  must  be  kept  down  ; 
otherwise  their  fruit  is  bad.  The  conclusion  is  that  what- 
ever in  the  theology,  the  polity,  the  ethics,  or  the  ritual  of 
the  church  is  at  variance  with  the  injunctions,  or  with  the 
more  intangible  genius  and  spirit  of  the  New  Testament,  is 
worthy  of  condemnation.  Whatever  is  not  thus  antagonis- 
tic to  the  standard,  even  though  it  may  not  be  explicitly  set 
forth  there,  is  amenable  to  criticism,  to  be  sure,  but  is  not 


4:4  THE   OLD   ROMAN    SPIEIT   AND   EELIGION 

of  necessity  to  be  discarded.  Between  things  enjoined  and 
things  forbidden  there  is  a  middle  district,  where,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  written  law,  there  is  no  guide  but  a  wise  Christian 
judgment. 

It  was  the  whole  church,  the  church  in  the  East  as  well 
as  the  West,  that  was  modified  by  the  influence  of  heathen- 
ism in  the  early  ages.  We  have  to  notice  both  the  effects 
which  were  due  to  the  antique  spirit  in  general,  to  which 
Christians  were  everyw^here  exposed,  and  which  left  its  mark 
upon  Greek  as  well  as  Latin  Christianity,  and  also,  more 
particularly,  the  effects  upon  Latin  Christianity,  owing  to 
the  peculiar  conditions  in  which  it  was  placed.  There  was 
a  general  heathen  influence,  and  a  peculiar  Latin  influence 
superadded.  The  world  in  which  the  Gospel  was  dissemi- 
nated was  Graeco-Roman.  I^otwithstanding  all  that  tended 
to'  render  "  the  monarchy  of  the  Mediterranean  "  homoge- 
neous, there  was  always  an  East  and  a  West,  separated,  to 
be  sure,  by  a  fluctuating  line,  but  characterized  distinctly  by 
the  prevalence  in  the  one  of  the  Greek  and  in  the  other  of 
the  Latin  influence.  The  division  of  the  empire  into  the 
Eastern  and  Western,  and  later  the  corresponding  division 
of  the  church,  was  not  merely  geographical,  but  was  based 
on  an  essential  diversity  of  character.  Accordingly,  the 
bent  of  theology  was  different  in  the  East  from  that  which 
was  prevalent  in  the  Western  mind.  Ecclesiastical  organi- 
zation and  life  shaped  themselves  differently  in  the  countries 
where  the  Latin  tongue  and  the  spirit  of  Rome  had  sway ; 
so  that  the  Latin  Church  is  a  fit  designation  of  the  church 
of  the  West.  So  Latin  Christianity  is  obviously  diverse  in 
character  from  the  German  or  Teutonic  Christianity,  which 
finally  broke  loose  from  the  tutelage  of  Rome,  and  at  the 
Reformation  separated  itself,  by  a  line  nearly  coincident 
with  the  race-division,  from  the  Latin  communion.  To  this 
last  contrast  we  shall  soon  advert  again.  There  are  several 
points  in  which  the  distinctively  Latin  spirit  transmitted  it- 
self to  the  Latin  Church. 


IN   LATIN   CHRISTIANITY.  4:5 

1.  We  see  plainly  in  tlie  Latin  Cliiircli  the  Roman  genius 
for  rule — tlie  capacity  and  disposition  to  exercise  authority. 
This  quality,  which  Yirgil  attributes  to  his  countrymen  as  a 
native  trait,*  and  which  the  growth  of  Roman  power  and  its 
long  duration  illustrate,  appears  to  have  passed  over  to  the 
Roman  Church  and  its  bishops.  A  recently-recovered  pas- 
sage of  the  earliest  extant  Christian  writing  after  the  apos- 
tles— the  Epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians — contains 
an  admonition,  almost  authoritative  in  its  tone,  addressed  to 
them  by  the  Roman  Church,  in  whose  name  Clement  wrote. 
To  be  sure,  had  not  circumstances  all  conspired  to  favor  the 
upbuilding  of  the  Roman  ecclesiastical  supremacy,  no  such 
domination  could  have  arisen.  But  with  the  same  truth  it 
may  be  said  that  the  talent  and  spirit  of  rule  were  an  equal- 
ly indispensable  condition.  The  love  of  order,  the  will  to 
check  insubordination  wherever  deference  and  obedience  are 
conceived  of  as  obligatory,  were  tendencies  of  the  Roman 
mind  which  appeared  in  full  vigor  in  the  incumbents  of  the 
chair  of  St.  Peter. 

For  the  papacy  remained  an  Italian  institution.  It  was 
built  up,  and  its  policy  was  moulded,  by  men  in  whom  the 
old  Latin  spirit  never  .died  out.  Leo  L,  at  the  crisis  when 
the  empire  was  falling  in  ruins  about  him,  wielding  the  scep- 
tre of  spiritual  supremacy  over  distant  provinces ;  interposing 
to  protect  society  from  anarchy ;  going  forth  to  the  camp  of 
Attila  to  save  Rome  from  his  destroying  host,  and  endeavor- 
ing, even  though  with  but  partial  success,  to  shield  the  Ro- 
mans from  Genseric  and  his  Yandal  army  ;  Gregory  L,  ex- 
ercising his  pontifical  rule  in  the  midst  of  political  tumult 
and  disorder,  and  sending  forth  missionaries  for  the  con- 
quest of  new  nations  to  the  faith  ;  Hildebrand,  insisting  on 
the  right  of  the  church  to  govern  itself  independently  of 
lay  authority ;  demanding  of  king  as  well  as  priest  absolute 
submission ;  sitting  for  days  in  the  castle  of  Canossa,  while 

•  um.  vi.  847-853. 


46  THE   OLD    ROMAN    8PIEIT    AND   RELIGION 

an  emperor  stood  without  in  the  court-yard  praying  for  ad- 
mission ;  Innocent  III.,  giving  away  crowns,  and  despatch- 
ing his  legates  to  lay  kingdoms  under  the  Interdict — in  these 
great  ecclesiastics,  the  leaders  and  rulers  of  men,  the  old 
Roman  dictators  and  proconsuls  seem  once  more  to  have 
clothed  themselves  in  flesh.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
from  an  early  day  the  bishops  of  Eome  found  it  more  nat- 
ural and  easy  to  assume  authority  for  the  reason  that  Rome 
was  their  abode.  It  had  been  a  place  of  authority  with 
which  no  other  seat  of  power,  ancient  or  modern,  can  be 
compared.  It  seemed  to  be  only  right  and  natural  that 
Rome  should  rule.  It  was  an  association  that  affected  the 
minds  of  the  incumbents  of  the  Roman  See,  as  well  as  of 
the  peoples  whose  allegiance  they  claimed. 

2.  Closely  allied  to  the  quality  just  mentioned  is  what  we 
may  call  the  idea  of  imperialism.  How  easy  it  was  for  the 
Latin  mind  to  associate  this  idea  with  the  church !  To  unify 
the  church  by  combining  all  its  parts  in  a  common  subjec- 
tion to  Rome  was  a  thought  natural  to  Roman  Christianity. 
The  empire  and  the  church  were  conceived  to  be  each  the 
counterpart  of  the  other.  In  making  Rome  the  capital  of 
the  empire,  God  had  intended  that  it  should  be  the  metrop- 
olis of  the  church.  Peter  and  his  successors  were  to  be  to 
the  ecclesiastical  commonwealth  what  the  Caesars  had  been 
to  the  civil.  The  emperors  of  the  West  in  the  fifth  century 
lent  their  aid  to  the  propagation  and  practical  realization 
of  this  idea.  When  everything  tended  to  disintegration, 
the  rulers  of  the  state  welcomed  the  unifying  influence  of 
the  Roman  ecclesiastical  supremacy.  "  Peace  " — so  runs  a 
law  of  Valentinian  III.,  in  445 — "  Peace  can  be  universally 
preserved  only  when  the  whole  church  acknowledges  its 
ruler."  This  was  a  policy  directly  contrary  to  that  of  the 
Byzantine  princes  in  relation  to  the  Eastern  church,  whose 
independence  they  destroyed.  When  the  Western  empire 
was  broken  up,  and  while  it  was  so  curtailed  in  its  bounda- 
ries as  to  embrace  only  Germany  and  Italy,  the  outlying 


m   LATIN   CHRISTIANITY.  47 

countries,  long  accustomed  to  tlie  idea  of  imperial  unity,  saw 
no  substitute  for  it  except  the  spiritual  rule  of  the  popes. 
Koman,  imperialism  contributed,  in  a  variety  of  ways,  to  en- 
gender and  sustain  imperialism  in  the  church. 

3.  The  most  conspicuous  among  the  features  of  the  Latin 
Church  which  it  inherited  from  old  Rome  was  the  legal 
spirit.  The  comparative  indifference  with  which  the  ancient 
Latin  Church  looked  on  the  controversies  in  speculative  di- 
vinity which  convulsed  the  East,  and  the  ardor  with  which 
the  same  Latin  Church,  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries, 
plunged  into  the  discussions  pertaining  to  the  doctrines  of 
sin,  of  free-will,  and  of  the  operation  of  divine  grace,  have 
often  been  pointed  out.  Mr.  Maine  thinks  that  the  histo- 
rians of  the  church  have  come  near  but  have  not  quite  hit 
the  solution,  in  referring  this  phenomenon  to  the  "  practi- 
cal "  character  of  the  Roman  mind.  The  reason  he  declares 
to  be  that,  "  in  passing  from  the  East  to  the  West,  theologi- 
cal speculation  had  passed  from  a  climate  of  Greek  meta- 
physics to  a  climate  of  Roman  law."  Yes ;  but  what  created 
this  diversity  of  climates  ?  Was  it  not  an  ingrained  philo- 
,  sophical  turn  in  the  Greek  mind — "  the  Greeks  seek  after 
wisdom  " — and  an  opposite  bent  of  the  Roman  mind,  which 
is  properly  described  by  the  epithet  "  practical "  ?  Roman 
politics,  Roman  jurisprudence,  were  the  fruit  of  that  peculiar 
temper  of  the  people  which  created  the  atmosphere  of  which 
Mr.  Maine  speaks,  and  which  the  historians  of  theology  have 
by  no  means  overlooked.  That  the  familiar  principles  and 
problems  of  the  Roman  law  affected  Latin  theology  there  is 
no  question.  "  Almost  everybody  who  has  knowledge  enough 
of  Roman  law  to  appreciate  the  Roman  penal  system,  the 
Roman  theory  of  the  obligations  established  by  contract  or 
delict,  the  Roman  view  of  debts  and  of  the  modes  of  incur- 
ring, extinguishing,  and  transmitting  them,  the  Roman  no- 
tion of  the  continuance  of  individual  existence  by  universal 
succession,  may  be  trusted  to  say  whence  arose  the  frame  of 
«nind  to  which  the  problems  of  Western  theology  proved  so 


48  THE   OLD   ROIMAN"   SPIEIT   AND    RELIGION 

congenial,  whence  came  the  phraseology  in  which  these 
problems  were  stated,  and  whence  the  description  of  reason- 
ing employed  in  their  solution."  *  The  lioman  law  which 
"  worked  itself  into  Western  thought "  was  not  the  modern 
civil  law,  but  the  philosophy  of  jurisprudence  which  "may 
be  partially  reproduced  from  the  Pandects  of  Justinian," 
As  to  legal  phraseology,  it  is  interesting  to  notice  the  recur- 
rence of  terms  from  this  source  in  the  first  Latin  theological 
writer  of  prominence,  Tertullian,  who  had  been  a  student 
of  Roman  law  and  forensic  eloquence  before  he  embraced 
the  ecclesiastical  profession.  He  entitles  one  of  his  books 
"  De  prsescriptione  hsereticorum."  The  term  prcBscrvptio  was 
a  legal  word  signifying  a  demurrer,  or  something  which  shut 
a  litigant  out  of  court  and  closed  his  mouth.  The  fact  which 
constitutes  the  prcBsorvptio,  levelled  by  Tertullian  at  the  per- 
verters  of  the  Gospel,  is  the  tradition  of  the  apostles'  teach- 
ing which  is  preserved  in  the  churches.  That  the  churches, 
so  recently  founded  by  the  apostles,  knew  nothing  of  these 
heretical  opinions  was  a  bar  to  controversy,  and  determined 
the  case  at  once.  Tertullian  in  two  other  treatises  intro- 
duces the  legal  word  satuf  actio  (or  the  cognate  verb),  not 
to  denote  the  atonement  of  Christ,  to  which  it  was  after- 
wards applied,  but  rather  as  a  description  of  penance,  or  of 
the  self-imposed  manifestations  of  penitence.  In  fasting  a 
man  "  satisfies  God "  by  denying  himself  food,  in  the  im- 
moderate partaking  of  which  he  has  offended  him.  f  It  is 
seemly  for  a  woman  to  clothe  herself  in  humble  attire,  that 
by  every  garb  of  satisfaction  (satisfactionis)  she  may  expi- 
ate the  ignominy  which  she  derives  from  Eve.  %  In  follow- 
ing down  the  stream  of  Latin  theology,  from  Augustine  to 
the  latest  of  the  schoolmen,  we  might  trace,  in  the  handling 
of  such  topics  as  sin,  the  atonement,  penance,  indulgences, 
absolution,  the  silent  influence  of  the  conceptions  which  Ro- 
man jurisprudence  had  made  current.     Augustine,  it  may 

*  Andmt  Law^  p.  347.  f  De  Jejun.^  c.  3. 

X  De  Cult.  Femm.^  I.,  i. 


IN   LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  49 

be  added,  was,  in  his  whole  genius  and  training,  a  Latin 
theologian.  It  is  true  that  he  was  fascinated  with  Plato- 
nism.  But  he  knew  little  Greek.  He  received  his  training 
in  the  schools  of  rhetoric.  His  reading  was  mainly  in  the 
Roman  classics.  The  themes  on  which  his  mind  was  exer- 
cised were  those  which  we  have  pointed  out  as  chiefly  inter- 
esting to  the  Latin  mind.  The  word  "  Augustinism  "  denotes 
certain  tenets  respecting  the  bondage  of  the  will  under  sin, 
and  the  operation  of  grace  in  delivering  it.  And  Augus- 
tine's influence  was  dominant  for  a  thousand  years  in  the 
Western  church.  Apart  from  favorite  inquiries  in  theology, 
the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  is  broadly  contrasted  with  the 
Greek,  in  that  the  one  has  aimed  more  at  the  regulation  of 
the  life,  at  the  management  of  the  individual  and  of  society, 
while  the  other  has  been  mainly  absorbed  in  maintaining 
orthodoxy  of  dogma.  The  epithet  "  orthodox,"  which  the 
Greeks  proudly  assume,  is  significant  of  the  spirit  of  their 
communion.  To  order  the  conduct  of  men  as  individuals, 
to  sway  the  action  of  political  societies,  has  been  ever  a  lead- 
ing end  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Herein  it  shows  itself  to 
be  Roman. 

The  contrast  between  Latin  and  Teutonic  Christianity  is 
hardly  less  striking.  The  ideal  of  ancient  life,  Greek  as 
well  as  Roman,  recognized  everywhere  restraint.  Every- 
thing must  be  within  measure.  "Xothing  too  much" — 
nihil  nimis — was  the  maxim  which  governed  the  creations 
of  classical  literature  and  art.  Character  and  manners  were 
subject  to  the  same  precept.  There  must  be  metes  and 
bounds  to  all  products  of  the  imagination.  Conduct  must 
be  shaped  by  rules.  Especially  did  the  Roman  mind  insist 
upon  rigidly  defining  what  is  to  be  done.  The  old  Roman 
religion  was  punctilious,  formal,  ritualistic.  Salvation  was 
by  works.  Worship  must  be  carried  forward  in  a  prescribed 
manner.  Each  god  must  have  his  due,  and  was  to  be  decor- 
ously honored.  The  Teutonic  mind  is  spiritual,  full  of  as- 
piration, chafing  under  the  yoke  of  rules  and  forms.  We 
3 


50  THE    OLD    ROMAN    SPIRIT   AND   RELIGION 

see  the  Teutonic  genius  in  the  Gothic  architecture,  and  in 
Shakespeare.  The  principle  of  personal  independence — 
that  element  in  European  civilization — is  ascribed  by  Guizot 
g,nd  other  historians  to  the  Germanic  influence.  The  ideal, 
spiritual  tendency  of  the  German  mind  appeared  in  the 
mysticism  of  the  latter  part  of  the  middle  ages,  which  was 
the  soil  from  which  the  Reformation  sprang  up.  Hegel  as- 
cribes the  Reformation  to  the  "  alte  und  durch  und  durch 
bewahrte  Innigkeit  des  deutschen  Yolkes,"  *  which  was  not 
satisfied  to  approach  God  by  proxy,  or  put  religion  outside 
of  the  soul,  in  sacraments  and  ceremonies,  or  make  the  vote 
of  a  council  of  priests  the  criterion  of  truth.  The  Teutonic 
mind  revolted  against  the  legalism  which  entered  into  the 
warp  and  woof  of  the  Latin  theology,  and  it  craved  an  im- 
mediate access  to  the  heavenly  good  offered  in  the  Gospel. 
Personal  communion  with  God,  founded  on  the  free  forgive- 
ness of  sin — the  intimate  communion  of  a  child  with  a  father 
— could  alone  meet  the  deep  want  of  the  spirit.  Hence, 
when  the  banner  of  Protestantism  was  unfurled,  the  Ger- 
manic peoples,  one  after  another,  with  alacrity  ranged  them- 
selves under  it. 

From  these  general  characteristics  of  the  Latin  Church,  in 
which  the  old  Roman  leaven  discovers  itself,  let  us  turn  to 
consider  certain  more  definite  traces  of  assimilation  to  that 
ancient  paganism  which  Christianity  supplanted. 

1.  The  sort  of  polytheism  introduced  through  the  cultus 
of  angels  and  of  saints.  Angelic  beings,  good  and  evil,  were 
a  prominent  element  in  the  current  Jewish  theology  when 
the  Gospel  was  first  preached.  Their  existence  and  agency 
are  recognized  in  the  New  Testament.  But  in  the  early 
church  they  came  to  hold  a  much  more  conspicuous  place  in 
the  thoughts  of  Christians.  Individuals,  as  well  as  nations, 
had  each  his  tutelary  angel,  who  watched  over  him.  Some- 
times it  was  held  that  each  person  is  attended  by  two  spirits, 

*  Phil,  der  Gesch.,  Werke^  b.  ix.  499  seq. 


m   LATEST   CHEISTIANrrr.  61 

one  bad  and  the  other  good.  The  strict  monotheism  with 
which  Christians  were  so  thoroughly  imbued  at  first,  and  the 
express  prohibitions  of  the  New  Testament,  long  prevented 
them  from  addressing  supplications  to  those  invisible  guar- 
dians. Ambrose,  in  the  fourth  century,  is  the  first  author 
quoted  as  countenancing  this  practice.  "  Obsecrandi  sunt  an- 
geli,  qui  nobis  ad  prsesidium  dati  sunt,"  are  his  words.  The 
meaning  is  simply  that  angels  are  to  be  invoked  to  intercede 
for  us.  It  was  held  that  they  carry  the  prayers  of  the  disciple 
up  to  God.  Hence  it  was  natural  that  they,  being  within  hear- 
ing, should  be  asked  to  intercede.  But  this  perilous  sort  of 
intercourse  with  supernatural  companions  not  divine  did  not 
stop  at  this  point.  Gradually  angels  came  to  be  themselves 
the  objects  of  homage  and  of  a  species  of  worship  which, 
however,  was  theoretically  distinguished  fi'om  that  due  to 
God  and  to  Christ.  The  custom  spread  of  appealing  to 
them  for  other  benefits  than  mere  intercession.  To  this 
host  of  \  secondary,  inferior  divinities,  close  at  hand  to  hear 
prayer  and  to  bestow  blessings,  there  were  added  a  throng  of 
martyrs  and  saints.  The  sanctity  of  martyrs  caused  their 
intercessory  prayers,  while  they  were  alive,  to  be  highly 
prized.  The  practice  of  appealing  to  them  after  their  death, 
especially  in  the  vicinity  of  their  mortal  remains,  where  it 
was  imagined  that  their  spirits  lingered,  easily  gained  a  foot- 
hold. It  was  natural  to  look  to  these  departed  worthies  for 
other  good  offices ;  and  so  martyr- worship  grew  up  by  the 
side  of  angel- worship.  Then  there  were  eminent  saints  who 
had  died  a  natural  death — ^holy  monks,  for  example — and  to 
these  supplications  might  with,  equal  reason,  be  directed. 
The  indefinite  fraternal  remembrance  of  departed  saints  in 
the  prayers  connected  with  the  Eucharist  gradually  trans- 
formed itself  into  a  species  of  worship  of  them.  Prayers 
were  offered  to  them  instead  (A  for  them. 

These  beliefs  and  practices  approximated  Christianity  to 
the  contemporaneous  heathenism,  which  tended  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  divine  unity,  and  reduced  the  gods  of  the  Pan- 


52  THE  OLD   ROMAN   SPIRIT   AND   RELIGION 

tlieon  to  the  rank  of  subordinates  and  instruments  of  the 
Supreme  Power.  Plutarch  had  ascribed  much  that  was  of- 
fensive in  the  old  mythology  to  demons — inferior  beings. 
The  gods  of  the  heathen  were  admitted  even  by  Christians 
really  to  exist,  but  were  considered  to  be  evil,  to  be  demons 
in  the  bad  sense  of  the  term.  The  worship  of  heroes  and 
the  deification  of  the  emperors  furnished  human  objects  of 
heathen  devotion.  A  heathen  of  the  fourth  or  the  fifth  century 
had  only  to  substitute  angels  for  the  old  subordinate  divini- 
ties, the  worship  of  martyrs  and  saints  for  the  adoration  of 
heroes,  and  of  emperors  whom,  after  they  had  abjured  the 
old  paganism,  it  was  awkward  to  deify.  He  had  before  be- 
lieved in  his  protecting  genius,  who  was  honored  on  birth- 
days and  might  be  invoked  in  any  emergency.  The  atten- 
dant spirit  he  had  only  to  christen  as  a  guardian  angel.  Kot 
that  Christian  worship  sank  down  to  the  level  of  the  former 
idolatry.  The  Christian  doctrine  respecting  God,  his  exalted 
nature,  and  his  holy  attributes,  might  be  obscured,  and  in  a 
degree  imperilled ;  yet  that  doctrine  continued  to  be  taught. 
I^Tevertheless  the  heathen  mind  could  find  in  the  Christian 
system  the  counterpart  of  what  it  had  cherished.  This 
facilitated  the  transition  from  one  system  to  another.  And 
this  resemblance  was  due,  to  a  considerable  extent,  to  the 
silent  influence  of  paganism  on  the  church. 

2.  The  localizing  of  worship.  The  feeling  that  God 
dwelleth  not  in  temples  made  with  hands,  that  neither  to 
Mt.  Gerizim  nor  to  the  Sanctuary  of  Jerusalem  is  the  wor- 
shipper obliged  to  resort,  but  that  the  real  temple  is  the 
human  soul,  was  very  much  qualified  after  the  church 
emerged  from  the  age  of  persecution,  came  forth  from  the 
catacombs,  found  it  safe  to  erect  costly  edifices,  and  began  to 
vie  with  the  heathen  in  seeking  for  pomp  and  impressive- 
ness  in  the  services  of  religion.  Under  the  Christian  em- 
perors heathen  temples  in  many  instances  were  handed  over 
to  Christians.  In  tlie  interval  between  Valerian  and  Diocle- 
tian, while  there  was  rest  from  persecution,  splendid  edifices 


IN   LATIN    CHKI8TIANITY.  53 

« 

were  built  for  Christian  worship.  The  last  great  persecu- 
tion, that  under  Diocletian,  was  signalized  in  its  beginning 
by  the  destruction  of  one  of  them,  the  church  at  Nicomedia. 
A  mysterious  sanctity  gradually  attached  itself  to  these 
places  of  worship.  In  the  fourth  century  the  names  of 
saints  came  to  be  connected  with  them ;  not  at  first  under 
the  idea  that  the  churches  were  consecrated  to  them,  but  the 
saint  whose  name  was  afl&xed  to  the  edifice  was  looked  upon 
as  a  special  patron  and  protector.  It  was  not  very  long, 
however,  before  the  church  became  a  shrine  for  the  chltus 
of  the  saint  whose  name  it  bore,  and  before  churches  came 
to  be  dedicated  to  these  human  objects  of  religious  venera- 
tion. The  graves  of  martyrs  collected  about  them  assem- 
blies for  religious  worship,  especially  on  the  anniversaries  of 
their  death.  Churches  and  altars  were  reared  over  their  re- 
mains. The  bodies  of  departed  saints  were  deposited  in 
churches.  Special  efiicacy  was  attributed  to  the  devotions 
practised  in  the  neighborhood  of  these  relics.  It  was  an  old 
pagan  tenet  that  cities  and  countries  were  blessed  and  pro- 
tected by  the  relics  of  fallen  heroes.  Cities  in  Greece  had 
been  built  over  the  graves  of  their  founders,  and  worship 
had  been  rendered  to  them.  The  superstitious  belief  in  the 
continuance  of  miracles  served  to  surround  the  hallowed 
centres  of  worship  with  a  constantly  increasing  sacredness. 

3.  In  hardly  any  particular  was  the  deviation  of  the  Latin 
from  the  primitive  church  more  signal  than  in  the  introduc- 
tipn  of  images  and  pictures  as  instruments  and  objects  of  de- 
votion. An  intense  antipathy  to  everything  of  this  sort  had 
been  derived  by  the  gentile  converts  to  Christianity  from 
their  Jewish  brethren.  As  late  as  the  close  of  the  second 
centuiy-  Clement  of  Alexandria  speaks  in  condemnation  of 
the  art  of  painting  altogether.  TertuUian  reproaches  Her- 
mogenes  with  being  a  painter.  Whether  Tertullian  objected 
to  the  art  as  being  in  itself  deceptive,  as  the  same  zealous 
father  denounces  the  masks  worn  by  actors  for  the  reason 
that  they  partake  of  fraud,   or  whether  his  objection  is 


64  THE   OLD   ROMAN   SPERIT   AND   RELIGION 

grounded  on  the  circumstance  that  the  heretical  artist  made 
pictures  for  heathen  worship,  is  not  clear.  The  dates  when 
pictorial  representations  of  a  religious  sort  were  first  intro- 
duced among  Christians  it  is  not  easy  precisely  to  determine. 
A  very  important  source  of  knowledge  on  this  whole  sub- 
ject is  the  catacombs.  But  here  the  dates  are  quite  uncer- 
tain. De  Rossi  and  Mr.  J.  H.  Parker  differ  very  widely 
from  one  another  in  their  judgments  on  this  point.  Paint- 
ings which  De  Rossi  considers  to  be  early  Mr.  Parker  would 
place  at  a  much  later  date.  The  main  difficulty  grows  out 
of  the  fact  that  the  pictures  in  these  subterranean  burial- 
places  were  subjected  to  a  process  of  restoration  in  the  sixth 
century  and  afterwards,  by  which  the  characteristics  indica- 
tive of  the  time  of  their  origin  were  very  much  obliterated. 
The  first  pictures  were  symbols — as  the  dove,  the  anchor, 
the  shepherd  with  a  lamb  on  his  shoulder — which  were  sub- 
stituted on  goblets  and  seal-rings,  and  on  sepulchral  inscrip- 
tions, for  mythological  representations  in  vogue  among  the 
heathen.  At  first  the  cross,  though  a  common  token 
among  Christians,  by  which  both  the  Saviour's  death  and 
the  humility  of  the  Christian  profession  were  called  to  mind, 
was  seldom  depicted.  Following  upon  this  class  of  paint- 
ings were  historical  pictures  of  Scriptural  events,  such  as 
the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  under  which,  beyond  the  interest  in 
the  subject  itself,  was  discerned  a  type  of  the  suffering  of 
Jesus.  Then  followed  the  portraiture  of  apostles  and  saints. 
It  was  long  before  any  representation  even  of  the  man 
Christ  Jesus  was  permitted,  and  longer  still  before  his  pic- 
ture was  allowed  in  churches.  Constantia,  the  sister  of  Con- 
stantino, sent  to  Eusebius  a  request  that  she  might  have  an 
image  of  Jesus.  In  denying  this  request,  Eusebius  says : 
"  Hast  thou  ever  seen  such  a  thing  in  a  church  thyself,  or 
heard  of  it  from  another  ?  Have  not  such  things  been  ban- 
ished throughout  the  whole  world,  and  driven  far  off  out  of 
the  churches  ? "  Constantia  died  in  354:.  Images  of  Jesus, 
whether  pictorial  or  in  sculpture,  were  first  used  by  hereti- 


IN   LATIN   CHBISTIANITY.  55 

cal  sects  like  the  Carpocratians.  Under  Leo  I.  (440-461) 
the  image  of  Christ  is  first  heard  of  in  a  Koman  church. 
For  several  centuries  church  teachers  forbade  homage  of 
whatever  kind  to  be  offered  to  pictures.  Augustine  dis- 
countenances the  practice  of  worshipping  an  image,  and  of 
praying  with  one's  eyes  fixed  upon  it.  The  Synod  of  Elvira 
in  305  or  306,  in  the  36th  canon,  expressly  forbids  the  in- 
troduction of  pictures  into  churches,  and  the  paying  of  hom- 
age to  them.  The  language  of  the  council  excludes  that 
qualified  sort  of  worship  which  the  Latin  Church  afterwards 
sanctioned.  "  Ne  quod  colitur  et  adoratur  "  is  the  phrase.^ 
But  after  the  fourth  century  the  custom  spread  of  depicting 
apostles,  martyrs,  and  other  individuals  of  high  repute  for 
their  sanctity,  or  renowned  for  their  beneficence,  upon  the 
walls  of  churches.  Augustine  allows  that  they  were  often 
worshipped  by  the  illiterate.  When  paganism  ceased  to  be 
feared  as  a  dangerous  foe,  the  spirit  of  resistance  to  practi- 
ces of  this  kind  lost  its  force.  Eoman  Catholic  scholars 
apologize  for  this  innovation  on  the  very  ground  that  when  the 
power  of  heathenism  was  broken,  it  was  no  longer  needful 
to  exclude  the  visible  auxiliaries  of  Christian  worship.  It 
seems  to  be  forgotten  that  these  auxiliaries  involved  a  revival 
of  paganism  in  another  form.  It  should  be  added  that,  in 
the  fifth  century,  images  of  Christ  and  of  the  Madonna  be- 
came common.  It  was  in  the  medteeval  era  of  the  Latin 
Church,  however,  that  the  devotional  use  of  images  and  pic- 
tures reached  its  height  and  engendered  the  worst  abuses. 

It  is  a  curious  fact  that  the  heathen  were  in  the  habit  of 
kissing  the  images  of  their  objects  of  worship,  as  is  now  the 
custom  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  especially  in  South- 
ern Europe.  Cicero  states  that  the  mouth  and  chin  of  the 
image  of  Hercules  at  Agrigentum  were  in  this  way  worn 
smooth  by  the  lips  of  devotees.     Lucretius  adverts  to  the 

*  See  Hefele's  History  of  Councils,  vol.  i.  Hefele  evidently  adopts  the 
interpretation  given  above. 


56  THE    OLD    ROMAN    SPIRIT    AND   RELIGION 

fact  that  the  hands  of  pagan  statues  were  worn  down  and 
polished  bj  the  kisses  of  those  who  passed  bj.  The  same 
effect  was  produced  that  we  see  now  on  the  toe  of  the  statue 
of  St.  Peter. 

4.  The  multiplying  of  festivals,  including  the  substitution 
of  heathen  for  Christian  celebrations.  Under  the  old  hea- 
thenism, there  were  numerous  festal  days  in  honor  of  the 
various  deities  whose  gifts  were  to  be  acknowledged  and 
whose  disfavor  was  to  be  deprecated.  These,  as  we  learn 
from  the  Eoman  writers,  were  a  serious  draught  upon  the 
time  of  working  people,  and  harmfully  interrupted  the 
labors  of  agriculture.  Among  Christians,  in  the  first  three 
centuries,  there  were  but  few  festivals.  Origen,  in  his  book 
against  Celsus,  written  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life — ^he  died 
in  254 — makes  mention  of  only  three :  the  Parasceue  (or 
Preparation),  the  Passover,  and  the  feast  of  Pentecost. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  near  the  end  of  the  second  century, 
speaks  of  Epiphany  as  a  festival  of  the  heretical  Basilidians  ; 
and  he  clearly  implies  that  there  existed  no  commemoration 
of  the  nativity  of  Jesus.  Toward  the  end  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, the  feast  of  the  Epiphany  established  itself  in  the 
Eastern  church,  but  not  until  the  second  half  of  the  fourth 
century  did  it  spread  in  the  West,  where  its  significance 
was  changed.  It  is  first  heard  of  in  the  West  in  360. 
Christmas,  on  the  contrary,  a  festival  of  Western  origin,  was 
not  celebrated  as  a  festival  separate  from  Epiphany,  in  An- 
tioch,  until  the  year  376.  Chrysostom,  in  a  sermon  deliv- 
ered on  the  25th  of  December,  386,  states  that  it  had  ex- 
isted there  for  ten  years.  We  find  it  fully  established  in 
Rome  in  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  and  its  origin  as 
a  distinct  festival  was  probably  not  very  long  before.  In 
connection  with  the  close  of  the  year  there  had  existed  a 
series  of  heathen  festivals  into  which  the  Romans  entered 
with  extreme  delight.  First  were  the  Saturnalia,  the  jubilee 
of  Saturn  or  Kronos,  which  marked  the  close  of  farm-work 
for  the  year,  when  the  reins  were  given  to  merriment,  when 


EST   LATIN   CHRISTIANITY.  57 

slaves  could  put  on  the  clothes  of  gentlemen,  and  wear  the 
badge  of  fi-eemen,  and  sit  at  a  banquet,  being  waited  on  by 
their  masters.  Then  came  the  Sigillaria  (on  the  21st  and 
22d  of  December),  when  the  streets  were  thronged,  gifts  in- 
terchanged among  friends,  wax-tapers  being  given  by  the 
humble  to  superiors,  and  when  many  sports  were  allowed 
which  resembled  those  of  Christmas  in  our  times  or  of  a 
Roman  carnival.  Miniature  images  of  the  gods  and  all 
sorts  of  presents  were  given  to  the  young.  Then  followed 
the  Brumalia — from  Bruma,  the  shortest  day — in  honor  of 
the  sun,  and  connected  with  the  Persian  sun-god,  Mithras, 
whose  cultus  had  been  brought  to  Rome  imder  Domitian 
and  Trajan.  This  festival — dies  natalis  invicti  soils — after 
the  synchronous  festival  of  Christmas  was  established,  con- 
tinued, as  Augustine  informs  us,  to  tempt  away  Christians 
to  a  participation  in  its  heathen  observances.  Leo  I.  com- 
plains that  the  custom  of  paying  religious  homage  to  the  sun 
still  lingered  among  many  Christians.  Even  among  the 
Greeks,  as  late  as  691,  a  council — the  second  Trullan — ^f  ound 
it  necessary  to  prohibit  Christians  from  taking  part  in  the 
celebration  of  the  Brumalia.  It  is  not  improbable  that  one 
motive  for  fixing  the  Christmas  festival  just  at  that  time  was 
to  shield  weak  Christians  from  the  seductive  influence  of 
the  pagan  and  often  unseemly  festivities  to  which  they  had 
been  accustomed.  In  justice  to  the  church,  it  should  be 
said,  however,  that,  generally  speaking,  where  there  were 
heathen  festivals  which  led  to  riotous  excess,  the  season  of 
their  occurrence  would  be  set  apart  for  prayer  and  penitence. 
This  was  the  case  with  the  New  Year's  Festival  of  the  hea- 
then, the  CalendcB  Januarice^  which  was  a  scene  of  revelry. 
The  festival  of  Christ's  circumcision  was  transferred  to  the 
New  Year — a  festival  utterly  diverse  in  its  origin  and  spirit 
from  the  boisterous  heathen  celebration  occurring  at  the 
same  time.  The  principal  abuses  in  the  church  arose  from 
the  habit  of  commemorating  martyrs  and  saints,  the  list  of 
whom  grew  into  an  extensive  catalogue.  The  Romans  re- 
3* 


58  THE   OLD   EOMAN   SPIRIT   AND   RELIGION 

garded  the  manes  of  their  ancestors  as  in  some  sense  divine. 
They  presented  to  them  not  only  sacrifices  but  other  gifts, 
such  as  wine,  milk,  and  garlands  of  flowers.  They  carried 
food  to  their  sepulchres  for  the  use  of  the  dead.  These 
banquets  the  Christians  imitated  by  preparing  feasts  at  the 
graves  of  the  saints,  of  which  these  invisible  beings  were  in- 
vited to  partake.  The  little  burial-chapels  in  the  catacombs 
were  places  for  the  friends  of  the  departed  to  meet  in. 
There  was  sometimes  a  close  parody  of  heathen  myths  and 
of  the  superstitions  that  grew  out  of  them.  On  the  15th 
of  July  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  pays  honor  to  Phocas, 
the  patron-saint  of  sailors,  who  took  the  place  of  Castor  and 
Pollux  in  the  Christian  mythology.  He  was  said  to  have 
been  a  gardener  at  Sinope,  and  to  have  been  put  to  death, 
under  Diocletian,  in  303.  He  was  made  the  guardian  saint 
of  all  who  prosecuted  voyages.  Seamen  sang  songs  in  his 
praise.  A  place  was  set  for  him  as  an  invisible  guest  at  the 
table  on  shipboard,  and  on  the  safe  arrival  of  the  vessel  in 
port  his  portion  of  its  earnings  was  given  to  the  poor.  In 
this  last  act  the  benevolent  spirit  of  the  Gospel  was  mani- 
fest, connected  though  it  was  with  superstitious  fancies. 
Let  the  amount  of  direct  heathen  influence  in  giving  rise  to 
the  commemoratibns  of  the  church  be  estimated  as  it  may 
be,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  pagans  found  in  the  mul- 
tiplied Christian  festivals  a  welcome  surrogate  for  those 
which  they  were  called  upon  to  give  up. 

5.  A  great  variety  of  customs  and  ceremonies,  resembling 
those  familiar  to  the  heathen,  but  not  included  under  the 
foregoing  topics,  were  early  adopted  by  the  church.  Votive 
offerings  are  deserving  of  special  mention.  Heathen  tem- 
ples, especially  the  temples  of  ^Esculapius,  were  hung  with 
gifts,  left  as  tokens  of  gratitude  for  deliverance  from  sick- 
ness, accident,  or  some  other  kind  of  trouble.  The  Virgin 
and  the  saints  were  honored  in  a  similar  way ;  and  Christian 
churches  exhibited,  like  the  heathen  sanctuaries,  images  of 
fingers,  legs,  and  other  parts  of  the  body,  made  of  silver  or 


IN   LATIN   CHEISTIANITT.  59 

some  other  substance,  in  connection  with  other  offerings  be- 
tokening thankfulness  for  rescue  from  suffering  or  danger. 
There  were  shrines  where  each  particular  disorder  was  sup- 
posed to  be  miraculously  healed  bj  some  special  saint  who 
made  the  victims  of  it  the  objects  of  his  benevolent  care. 
This  was  one  of  the  occasions  of  the  pilgrimages  which,  hav- 
ing been  a  heathen,  now  became  a  Christian  usage.  The 
pagans  had  been  in  the  habit  of  resorting  to  the  temples  of 
^sculapius,  or  Isis,  or  Serapis,  in  order  that  the  god  might 
teach  them  in  their  dreams  in  the  night-time  how  to  rid 
themselves  of  their  diseases.  So  Christians  betook  them- 
selves to  their  churches,  to  the  end  that  the  saint  whose 
image  was  enshrined  within  thtoi  might,  in  like  manner, 
inform  them  in  their  slumber  how  to  regain  their  health. 
The  introduction  of  incense  among  the  ceremonies  of  wor- 
ship is  a  curious  illustration  of  the  incoming  of  heathen  in- 
novations. The  fathers  of  the  second  century,  Athenagoras, 
Tertullian,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  contrast  the  worship  of 
Christians  in  this  particular  with  that  of  the  heathen. 
"  The  Creator,"  says  Athenagoras,  "  does  not  require  blood, 
nor  smoke^  nor  the  sweet  smell  of  flowers,  nor  inceiiseP 
Tertullian  says :  "  We  buy  no  frankincense ;  '^  we  offer  "  not 
one  pennyworth  of  the  grains  of  frankincense."  Clement 
says  that  the  perfume  from  the  altar  is  "  holy  prayer."  The 
fathers  of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  give  the  same  testi- 
mony. Arnobius  (a.d.  298)  speaks  of  the  use  of  incense 
even  among  the  heathen  as  a  modern  thing,  and  infers  from 
this  circumstance  alone  that  it  is  offered  vainly  and  to  no 
purpose.  In  the  same  spirit  write  Lactantius  (a.d.  303)  and 
even  Augustine  (a.d.  396).  The  great  Latin  father  approves 
of  the  statement  which  he  quotes,  that  "  frankincense  and 
other  perfumes  ought  not  to  be  offered  at  the  sacrifice  of  God." 
It  was  not  imtil  the  sixth,  or  late  in  the  fifth  century,  that 
incense  was  used  in  the  ritual.  It  was  brought  into  the 
church  first  merely  as  a  disinfectant,  to  sweeten,  and,  as  was 
thought,  to  purify  the  air.     Tertullian  refers  to  this  use  of 


60  THE   OLD   EOMAN   SPIKIT  AND   RELIGION 

it.  Pseudo-Dionjsius,  early  in  the  sixth  century,  is  the  first 
writer  who  adverts  to  incense  as  a  part  of  Christian  worship. 
He  speaks  of  the  priest  censing  the  altar,  and  then  going 
over  "  the  whole  circuit  of  the  sacred  place."  "^  Of  course 
the  precedent  of  the  ancient  Jewish  worship  could  be 
pleaded  in  support  of  the  new  practice.  Thus  it  was  the 
accident  of  the  use  of  perfume  for  the  homely  practical  end 
of  expelling  bad  odors,  that  brought  it  into  Christian  sanc- 
tuaries as  an  instrument  of  worship.  One  is  reminded  of  the 
fact  that,  several  centuries  later,  it  was  the  frequent  acci- 
dental spilling  of  drops  of  wine  at  the  Eucharist  that  first  led 
to  the  withholding  of  the  cup  from  the  laity.  Circumstances 
in  themselves  trifling  have  led  to  grave  transformations  in 
the  ritual,  and  indirectly  in  the  doctrine,  of  the  church. 
After  the  censer  was  adopted  as  a  utensil  of  devotion,  the 
Christian  priest  pacing  before  the  altar,  attended  by  the 
thurifer  with  the  swinging  thurible  in  his  hand,  presented 
an  almost'  exact  image  of  what  had  been  familiar  to  the  eyes 
of  visitors  to  heathen  temples.  The  spectacle  was  one  wliicb 
the  early  Christians,  had  they  been  present  to  witness  it, 
would  have  beheld  with  astonishment  and  reprobation,  and 
one  which  the  heathen,  on  the  other  hand,  of  an  earlier  day 
-^vould  have  recognized  as  closely  resembling  a  rite  of  their 
own.  A  heathen  in  the  fifth  century  who  should  cross  the 
threshold  of  a  Christian  church  would  observe  much  in  the 
exterior  arrangements  of  the  building  and  of  the  service 
that  would  tend  to  make  him  feel  at  home.  He  would  find 
much  to  remind  him  of  the  religion  in  which  he  had  been 
bred.  The  very  edifice  might  have  once  been  a  temple  of 
pagan  worship.  Kow  it  wore  the  name  of  that  one  of  the 
host  of  invisible  beings  to  whom  it  was  specially  sacred,  and 
to  whom  supplications  might  be  addressed  with  marked 
efficacy  within  its  walls.     All  around  there  might  not  im- 

•  The  pass^Gs  on  this  subject  are  collected  by  Bingham  (b.  viii.,  c. 
VL  §  21)  and  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  Christ.  Antiquities. 


IN   LATIN   CHRISTIANITY.  61 

probably  be  seen  votive  gifts — donaria — like  those  which 
the  heathen  had  been  wont  to  see  in  his  own  sanctuaries. 
There  was  an  altar  with  lamps  burning  near  it,  and  with 
priests,  in  their  official  garb,  standing  before  it ;  there  were 
genuflexions  and  processions,  all  stamped  with  a  likeness  to 
familiar  parts  of  the  heathen  ritual.  It  is  true  that  there 
were  no  bloody  offerings,  and  that  transubstantiation  had 
not  come  to  be  an  article  of  Christian  belief ;  but  the 
Eucharist  was  called  a  sacrifice,  and  was  invested  with  an  at- 
mosphere of  awe  and  mystery. 

It  would  be  a  rash,  unauthorized  inference  that  the  church 
in  the  last  half  of  the  patristic  period,  or  that  the  mediaeval 
church  in  which  excrescences,  like  those  referred  to,  in- 
creased in  number  and  volume,  was  nothing  better  than 
heathen.  In  the  constitution,  creed,  ceremonial,  of  the 
church  after  Constantine,  truth  and  error,  good  and  evil, 
were  strangely,  almost  indissolubly,  mixed.  To  call  it  a 
mere  baptized  paganism  is  to  ignore  the  principle  of  life 
that  ever  inhered  in  it.  The  truth  of  redemption  through 
Christ,  with  the  facts  presupposed  and  included  in  it,  how- 
ever that  truth  may  have  been  mingled  with  erroneous  fan- 
cies and  overlaid  with  cumbrous  ceremonies,  still  constituted 
the  life-blood  of  Christianity. 

A  question  that  may  occur  to  the  reader  of  the  foregoing 
pages  is  this :  If  Latin  Christianity  has  thus  proved  itseK 
congenial  to  the  Latin  nations,  are  they  likely  to  be  satisfied 
with  Protestantism  in  its  present  shape  ?  Is  it  to  be  expected 
that  the  nations  of  Southern  Europe  will  reconcile  themselves 
to  the  system  of  worship  which  has  proved  acceptable  to  the 
peoples  of  German  extraction  ?  This  opens  up  the  question 
of  symbolism  in  religion.  No  one  can  escape  from  symbol- 
ism altogether.  The  strictest  Puritan  kneels  in  prayer,  and 
the  act  of  kneeling  not  only  expresses,  but  also  facilitates, 
the  inward  prostration  of  the  spirit.  It  is  the  form,  the  visi- 
ble embodiment,  the  material  investiture,  of  the  spiritual  act. 
Even  the  Quaker  at  his  meeting,  in  his  sober  mien,  his  quiet. 


62  THE   OLD   ROMAN   SPIEIT   AND   RELIGION 

expectant  attitude,  expresses  that  waiting  for  the  silent  com- 
ing of  the  Spirit  which  is  the  posture  of  his  mind.  Who- 
ever bows  or  shakes  hands  with  a  friend,  or  embraces  him, 
indulges  in  symbolism.  A  gesture  is  a  symbol.  It  expresses 
an  emotion,  or  a  volition,  or  an  intellectual  act.  It  is  the 
living  counterpart  of  the  mental  movement.  Body  and  soul 
are  so  intimately  connected  that  a  sympathetic  physical  action 
spontaneously  accompanies  the  action  of  the  soul,  and  all  the 
more  when  the  soul  is  deeply  moved.  There  is  a  ritual  of 
etiquette,  of  friendship,  of  social  intercourse,  as  well  as  of 
religion.  The  manners  of  a  gentleman  or  of  a  lady  are  sym- 
bolical of  refined  feelings,  of  self-respect,  and  of  regard  for 
others,  even  in  little  things.  Manners  are  a  language.  The 
feeling  bodies  itself  forth  instinctively  in  outward  acts  ;  and 
cultivation  here,  as  elsewhere,  is  not  artifice,  but  the  perfect- 
ing of  nature.  Symbolism  is  more  natural  and  more  grate- 
ful, more  of  a  necessity  of  the  spirit,  as  one  may  say,  to  one 
individual  than  to  another.  One  person  would  feel  himself 
cramped  if  this  mode  of  expj:eesing  thought  and  emotion 
were  confined  within  the  limits  which  another  has  no  im- 
pulse to  overpass.  In  different  stages  of  culture  there  is  a 
difference  in  the  degree  of  satisfaction  yielded  by  symbols. 
The  pageants  of  the  middle  ages  no  longer  interest  the  Euro- 
pean mind  as  they  once  did.  Medigeval  ceremonies,  which 
are  still  observed  in  connection  with  courts  and  royalty,  strike 
one  as  curious  relics  of  a  by-gone  time.  They  may  seem 
puerile,  and  they  may  be  in  reality  puerile — that  is,  they 
may  have  been  the  offshoot  of  a  time  when  there  was  a  dis- 
proportionate liveliness  of  emotion  and  fancy,  such  as  be- 
longs to  children.  It  is  true  evidently  of  certain  branches  of 
the  human  race  that  gesture,  pantomime,  all  that  falls  under 
the  head  of  symbolical  expression,  form,  and  ceremony,  are 
far  more  congenial — we  might  say  indispensable — than  is 
true  of  peoples  of  a  more  reserved  temperament.  The  viva- 
cious manners  of  the  Frenchman,  and  the  more  stiff  and 
stolid  ways  of  the  Englishman,  have  always  been  to  both  the 


IN    LATfN    CHRISTIANITY.  63 

source  of  mutual  diversion.  The  southern  European  nations 
are  by  nature  more  ritualistic  than  the  northern.  The  brighter 
skies,  the  sunny  landscape,  the  peculiar  fruits  and  flowers, 
are  not  more  characteristic  of  the  south  than  is  the  love  of 
music  and  song,  of  painting  and  sculpture,  of  brilliant  dress 
and  ceremony,  and  of  expressive  tones  and  gestures.  Wor- 
ship is  naturally  affected  by  this  diversity  of  temperament. 
A  'New  England  Puritan  thinks  it  natural  to  clothe  himself 
in  black  in  token  of  grief  for  a  lost  friend,  and  to  march  in 
a  procession  on  the  fourth  of  July.  But  he  finds  it  more 
difficult  to  see  how  any  one  should  be  inclined  to  carry  an 
analogous  symbolism  into  the  services  of  religion.  Now  the 
exact  limits  of  that  symbolism  in  worship  which  is  allowable 
under  the  Gospel  do  not  admit  of  mathematical  definition. 
There  is  no  prescribed,  unbending  code  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment on  this  subject.  The  Saviour  and  the  apostles  preached 
often  in  the  open  air.  They  wore  no  official  garments. 
Probably  no  one  at  present  thinks  that  the  cloak  which  Paul 
left  at  Troas  was  a  surplice ;  or  that,  if  it  had  been,  he 
would  have  suspended  his  work  as  a  minister  to  wait  for  its 
arrival.  Everything  in  the  services  of  the  primitive  church 
was  plain  and  simple.  At  the  same  time  there  was  no  law 
laid  down  in  reference  to  these  matters.  There  are  certain 
principles,  however,  to  which  the  church  is  bound  to  adhere 
in  all  the  arrangements  of  worship.  First,  the  symbol  must 
be  significant  of  a  truth,  and  not  of  an  error.  The  rite 
speaks  to  the  observer,  and  the  language  which  it  utters 
must  be  true.  An  erroneous  doctrine  which  has  clothed  it- 
self in  symbol  can  be  subverted  only  by  abolishing  the 
forms  in  which  it  is  invested.  Secondly,  the  symbol  pust 
be  immediately  intelligible.  It  must  conform  to  the  rules 
of  allegorical  art.  If  it  fail  to  do  this,  it  is  obnoxious  from 
an  aesthetic  point  of  view.  Still  more  obnoxious  is  it  from 
a  religious  point  of  view ;  for  it  becomes  then  an  opaque 
glass.  It  is  a  mirror  in  which  nothing  is  reflected.  It  is  a 
fossil  from  which  the  life  is  gone.     It  is  a  word  in  an  un- 


64  THE   OLD   ROMAN    SPIRIT   AND   RELIGION 

known  tongue.  The  observance  of  unmeaning  rites  is  a 
mechanical  sort  of  devotion,  equally  dishonorable  to  God, 
who  will  be  worshipped  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  and  to  the 
soul,  which  is  degraded  by  the  exercise  of  a  blind,  stupid 
homage,  that  is  kept  up  in  deference  to  authority  or  fi'om 
mere  force  of  habit.  The  symbolical  act  or  object  must  tell 
its  own  tale  at  once,  and  must  continue  to  do  so,  or  it  is 
worse  than  useless ;  for  a  rational  being  is  harmed  by  the 
performance  of  irrational  acts.  Such  acts  are  doubly  mis- 
chievous when  they  come  to  be  regarded  as  meritorious,  and 
to  be  made  a  substitute,  as  to  some  extent  they  are  very 
likely  to  be,  for  faith,  love,  and  charity,  and  for  good  deeds 
springing  from  them.  Formalism  is  the  enthronement  of 
rites  in  the  place  that  belongs  to  the  feelings  and  purposes 
of  the  heart.  External  observances  are  made  by  the  formal- 
ist an  end  and  not  a  means.  They  are  valued  for  their  own 
sake.  If  they  do  not  supplant  the  dedication  of  the  heart, 
which  is  the  "  reasonable  " — that  is,  the  rational  or  spiritual 
— service  to  be  rendered  to  God  by  a  Christian,  they  are 
placed  on  a  level  with  it,  and  thus  deprive  it  of  the  supreme 
place  that  of  right  belongs  to  it.  "  Obedience  is  better  than 
sacrifice."  Kites  that  are  devoid  of  meaning  are  an  offence. 
Formalism  in  religion  is  like  artificial,  affected  manners  in 
social  life.  They  tend  to  stifle  true,  cordial  feeling.  Hon- 
est minds  break  through  such  barriers,  and  may  be  led  by 
the  energy  of  their  protest  to  fall  into  rude  and  blunt  ways, 
which  are  preferable  to  a  hollow  and  unmeaning  courtesy. 
Thirdly,  all  visible  representations  of  the  invisible  God  are 
irreverent  in  their  nature.  The  law  of  the  Old  Testament 
on  this  subject  was  given  to  prevent  idolatry.  It  was  one 
great  object,  moreover,  to  educate  the  souls  of  men  to  the 
exercise  of  faith  in  realities  which  belong  to  an  order  higlier 
than  that  of  the  visible  world.  This  design  is  defeated 
when  the  Deity  is  depicted  in  human  form,  and  the  august 
mystery  of  his  being  brought  down  to  the  level  of  his  crea- 
tures.    In  the  ancient  church,  representations  of  God  the 


IN   LATIN   CHRISTIANITY.  65 

Father,  and  any  other  than  symbolical  representations  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  were  rigidly  excluded.  The  inveterate  tenden- 
cy, especially  of  the  uneducated  mind,  to  identify  the  image 
with  the  being  whom  it  is  intended  to  represent  is  a  suffi- 
cient reason  why  images  of  Jesus  should  not  be  used  as  aux- 
iliaries in  worship.  It  is  legitimate  for  the  arts  of  painting 
and  sculpture  to  give  form  to  the  ideals  of  Christ  which  the 
study  of  his  human  life  inspires.  An  elevating  influence 
may  go  forth  from  these  creations  of  art.  The  Christ  of 
Leonardo  da  Yinci,  the  study  for  the  painting  of  the  Last 
Supper,  with  the  deep  but  patient  sorrow  that  is  stamped 
upon  the  countenance,  gives  new  vividness  to  our  conception 
of  the  "  Man  of  sorrows."  He  must  be  an  iconoclast  indeed 
who  would  blot  out  of  existence  the  descent  from  the  cross 
as  depicted  in  all  its  terrible  reality  by  the  pencil  of  Rubens. 
But  such  creations  of  art  are  not  to  be  made  the  objects  of 
worship,  and  worshippers  cannot  look  to  them  in  prayer 
without  the  risk  of  confounding  the  unseen  exalted  One 
with  the  imaginary  portrait  of  him  that  is  spread  upon  the 
canvas.  Fourthly,  the  multiplying  of  symbols  beyond  a 
limit,  which,  of  course,  cannot  be  precisely  defined,  is  evil  in 
its  influence.  Crutches  are  good  to  support  the  weak,  but 
are  of  no  benefit  if  they  supersede  the  natural  use  of  the 
muscles.  Pictures  are  useful  in  teaching,  but,  if  employed 
beyond  a  certain  limit,  they  keep  the  mind  in  a  passive  state 
that  interferes  with  the  due  development  of  its  powers.  An 
elaborate  ritual  becomes  a  spectacle,  in  which,  at  the  best, 
the  soul  is  acted  upon,  with  little  exertion  on  its  own  part. 
There  is  a  golden  mean  between  a  dazzling  and  distracting 
symbolism,  complex  and  wearisome  to  a  thoughtful  mind, 
and  a  bald,  frigid  service,  where  no  help  is  derived  from  the 
senses,  and  where  the  didactic  element,  in  the  form  of  ab- 
stract discussion,  excludes  every  other.  We  may  reject  the 
idea  of  Archbishop  Laud  and  the  ritualists  as  to  what  is  meant 
by  worshipping  God  in  "  the  beauty  of  holiness,"  but  in  fly- 
ing from  Scylla  we  should  not  wreck  ourselves  on  Charybdis. 


Q6  THE    OLD    ROMAN    SPIRIT   AND   RELIGION 

Starting  with  these  principles  respecting  the  nature  and 
use  of  symbolism,  we  are  prepared  to  allow  to  Protestant- 
ism the  liberty  of  conforming  its  ritual  to  the  temperament, 
taste,  and  national  peculiarities  of  the  several  peoples  among 
whom  it  may  be  planted.  There  are  many  customs  which 
belong  under  the  category  of  things  indifferent,  and  which 
it  may  be  a  duty  to  discard  under  one  set  of  circumstances, 
while  they  may  be  admitted  without  harm  when  the  situa- 
tion is  altered.  The  great  conflict  of  the  Puritans  against 
sacerdotal  usurpation  led  them  to  push  their  protest  in  cer- 
tain directions  further  than  is  necessary  at  present,  now  that 
the  battle  has  been  fought  and  won,  and  when  in  many  com- 
munities the  danger  which  they  dreaded  has  passed  by.  A 
rigid  adhesion  to  a  particular  method  of  worship,  when  there 
are  reasons  for  varying  from  it,  is  itself  formalism,  one  of 
the  principal  evils  against  which  Puritanism  contended.  A 
certain  elasticity  must  be  allowed  in  things  external.  The 
criterion  is  to  ascertain  what  conduces  to  the  edification  of 
the  flock,  not  in  some  foreign  latitude,  but  in  the  place  with 
respect  to  which  the  question  is  raised.  Should  the  Protes- 
tant doctrines  spread  extensively  in  Latin  countries,  it  is  not 
impossible  that  forms  of  worship  may  arise  specially  conso- 
nant with  the  native  characteristics  of  the  inhabitants  of 
those  lands.  There  may  arise  a  Latin  Protestantism  differ- 
ent in  its  external  features  from  Germanic  Protestantism. 
There  is  no  hurtful  rupture  of  unity  in  such  diversity.  At 
the  Keformation,  Protestantism  in  the  southern  countries 
tended  to  a  particular  type  not  strictly  accordant  with  the 
German.  The  acceptance  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith  alone  was  often  accompanied  by  a  less  degree  of  dis- 
affection towards  important  parts  of  the  Eomish  ritual,  and 
with  a  less  degree  of  repugnance  to  the  sacraments  as  for- 
merly administered.  In  France,  many  who  were  inclined 
to  Protestant  opinions,  like  Margaret,  the  sister  of  Francis 
L,  and  the  class  in  sympathy  with  her,  occupied  this  posi- 
tion.    The  phenomena  of  the  Reformation  in  that  age  in 


UNIVERSITY 

m   LATIN   CHRISTIANITY.  67 

Italy  and  Spain  indicate  the  natural  bent  of  the  Latin  mind. 
The  Old  Catholic  movement  in  our  day  seemed  at  first  to 
hold  out  the  pi-omise  of  issuing  in  a  new  type  of  Protestant- 
ism which  should  be  more  satisfactory  to  such  adherents  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  as  were  evangelical  in  their  tendencies. 
Pere  Hyacinthe,  disposed  though  he  was  to  head  a  revolt 
against  the  Pope  and  the  popular  type  of  Eomanism,  did 
not  find  himself  at  home  in  the  midst  of  Protestantism, 
with  its  absence  of  form  and  its  churches  locked  up  except 
on  Sunday.  He  was  evidently  feeling  after  a  system  which, 
while  it  should  be  free  from  Komish  abuses  of  doctrine  and 
practice,  should  make  a  warmer  appeal  to  the  sensibility  and 
aesthetic  feeling  than  any  of.  the  Protestant  denominations 
presented.  He  wanted  a  system  that  should  bring  religion, 
more  visibly  and  constantly,  before  the  minds  and  close  to  the 
hearts  of  men.  It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  his  main 
difficulty  was  that  he  did  not  see  his  way  clear  to  lay  the 
axe  at  the  root  of  the  tree  by  distinctly  renouncing  the  sacer- 
dotal theory  of  the  ministry.  No  effectual  issue  can  be 
made  with  Romanism  by  those  who  cling  to  the  theory  of  a 
mediatorial  priesthood.  The  greatness  of  Luther  is  strik- 
ingly manifest  in  the  boldness  with  which  he  assaulted  the 
central  dogmas  of  the  opposing  system,  instead  of  expend- 
ing his  strength  on  the  outworks.  In  one  of  his  early  publica- 
tions, the  Address  to  the  Nobles  of  the  German  Nation^ 
he  struck  a  vigorous  blow  at  the  doctrine  that  the  clergy  are 
a  close  corporation  of  priests  on  whom  the  laity  are  depend- 
ent for  the  sacraments.  It  was  because  he  laid  a  string 
foundation  in  principles,  that  his  war  against  the  papacy  was 
something  more  than  an  irregufer,  guerilla  contest,  and  re- 
sulted in  a  great  and  permanent  conquest.  The  abortive 
character  of  the  Old  Catholic  movement  is  due  Very  much 
to  its  failure  to  lay  hold  of  the  principles  on  which  alone  an 
insurrection  against  the  Church  of  Rome  can  maintain  it- 
self. 


68  THE   TEMPORAL   KINGDOM   OF   THE   POPES. 


THE  TEMPORAL  KINGDOM  OF  THE  POPES  * 

The  great  Popes  in  the  middle  ages  endeavored  to  realize 
the  splendid,  but  impracticable,  conception  of  a  theocratic 
empire,  which  should  embrace  all  Christian  nations,^  and  of 
which  the  Pope  was  to  be  the  head.  The  attempt  was  made 
to  establish  an  administration  such  as  would  require  wisdom, 
justice,  and  benevolence,  as  well  as  power,  in  a  supei-human 
measure.  The  Popes  renounce  no  pretension  that  has  once 
been  made ;  but  the  extravagant  claims  of  Hildebrand,  In- 
nocent III.,  and  Boniface  VIII.,  are  silently  dropped — the 
claim  to  set  up  and  pull  down  princes,  and  to  settle  inter- 
national disputes — and  the  revival  of  such  claims  at  the 
present  day  would  only  excite  ridicule.  For  several  centu- 
ries, national  interests  have  been  strong  enough,  in  the  poli- 
tics of  Europe,  to  override  ecclesiastical  and  religious  bonds 
of  association.  The  design  of  this  Article  is  not  to  discuss 
the  obsolete  claim  of  the  papacy  to  a  temporal  supremacy 
over  Christendom,  but  to  touch  on  the  salient  points  in  the 
history  of  their  own  peculiar  kingdom  in  Italy. 


On  Christmas  Day,  in  the»year  800,  in  the  old  Basilica  of 
St.  Peter  at  Rome,  Pope  Leo  III.  placed  the  imperial  crown 
on  the  head  of  Charlemagne.     It  was  one  of  those  particular 

*  A  Keview,  in  The  New  Englander^  for  January,  1867,  of  GeschicJite 
der  EnUtehung  und  Aushildung  des  Kirchenstaates.  Von  Samuel  Sugen- 
heim.  Leipzig,  1854;  U^glise  etlaSodeU  Ghretienne  en  1861.  Par  M. 
Guizot.     Quatrieme  edition.     Paris,  1866. 


THE   TEMPOEAL   KINGDOM   OF   THE   POPES.  69 

events  or  scenes  in  which  a  great  epoch  is  signalized  and 
pictured,  as  it  were,  to  the  eye.  It  is  a  landmark  terminat- 
ing the  first  period  in  the  annals  of  the  Popes'  temporal 
sovereignty. 

During  the  first  three  centuries,  while  the  church  was  a 
persecuted,  but  rapidly  growing,  sect,  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
was  steadily  acquiring  moral  infiuence  and  hierarchical  au- 
thority. After  Constantino  began  to  take  the  church  under 
his  patronage — his  edict  of  toleration  was  issued  in  312 — 
and  after  he  and  his  successors  not  only  granted  to  the 
church  the  I'ight  to  receive  legacies  and  hold  property,  but 
also  enriched  it  by  their  own  offerings,  the  Roman  bishops 
were  in  a  position  to  profit  greatly  by  these  new  privileges. 
Gradually  they  became  possessed  of  extensive  estates,  not 
only  in  Italy,  but  also  in  Sicily  and  Gaul,  and  even  in  Afri- 
ca and  Asia.  In  the  time  of  Gregory  the  Great  (590-604), 
their  annual  income  from  the  estates  near  Marseilles  alone 
amounted  to  fom-  thousand  pieces  of  gold.  It  is  true  that 
this  "  patrimony  of  Peter,"  as  even  then  it  was  called,  was 
held  by  the  Pope  as  a  private  proprietor  or  trustee,  and  not 
as  a  sovereign.  For  example,  the  Papal  lands  in  Gaul  were 
subject  to  the  king  of  the  country,  like  the  lands  of  any 
other  proprietor.  Yet  the  control  of  the  Pope  over  exten- 
sive estates  would  border,  in  some  particulars,  upon  that  of 
a  sovereign,  and  the  rudiments  of  a  secular  dominion  are 
properly  discerned  in  this  early  relation.  The  downfall  of 
the  empire  left  the  Roman  Pontiff  the  most  important  per- 
sonage in  all  the  West.  But  during  the  score  of  years  (from 
551  to  568)  that  followed  the  conquest  of  Italy  by  the  gene- 
rals of  Justinian,  and  preceded  the  partial  overthrow  of  the 
Byzantine  rule  in  that  country  by  the  Lombards,  the  coercion 
exercised  upon  the  Popes  by  the  tyrants  of  Constantinople 
serves  to  show  how  much  the  papacy  was  to  be  indebted  for 
its  growth  to  the  abse^ce  of  an  overshadowing  power  in  its 
neighborhood. 

To  the  Lombard  conquest  the  Popes  owed  their  secular 


70  THE   TEMPORAL   KINGDOM   OF  THE   POPES. 

dominion.  That  which  infused  into  them  the  greatest  terror 
turned  out  ;providentially  to  be  the  greatest  benefit.  This  bar- 
barian people,  partly  Arian  and  partly  pagan  in  their  religion, 
overran  the  larger  portion  of  Italy.  They  left  to  the  Byzantine 
emperor,  in  middle  and  northern  Italy,  besides  Rome,  and  a 
few  other  fortified  places,  a  strip  of  territory  along  the  sea- 
coast,  in  which  were  included  Ravenna,  the  seat  of  the  so- 
called  Exarch,  or  Governor-General,  under  the  Eastern  em- 
pire, and  the  five  cities  (Pentapolis),  Ancona,  Sinigaglia, 
Fano,  Pesaro,  and  Rimini.  The  various  cities  outside  of  the 
Exarchate,  of  which  Rome  was  one,  had  been  placed  under 
subordinate  governors,  called  dukes.  After  the  Lombard 
invasion,  the  Byzantine  rule  over  the  places  which  had  not 
yielded  to  the  conquerors  was  little  more  than  a  nominal 
sovereignty.  In  this  time  of  anarchy  and  distress,  the  Pope 
was  the  natural  leader  and  defender,  as  well  as  the  benefac- 
tor, of  the  people  whom  the  emperor  was  unable  to  protect. 
When  the  quarrel  broke  out  between  the  Pope  and  Leo  the 
Isaurian,  in  regard  to  the  worship  of  images,  the  Romans 
warmly  sided  with  their  bishop  against  the  iconoclastic  em- 
peror. They  even  drove  out  the  Byzantine  duke,  who  had 
long  possessed  only  the  shadow  of  power,  and  they  would 
have  proclaimed  their  independence  and  a  republic,  had  not 
the  Pope  withstood  them,  his  motive  being  an  intense 
anxiety  lest  imperial  power  should  fall  into  the  hands  of  the 
Lombard  king.  He  naturally  chose  to  keep  up  a  nominal 
connection  with  the  Eastern  empire,  which  brought  no  real 
inconvenience,  in  preference  to  falling  under  the  sway  of  his 
aggressive,  powerful,  and  heretical  neighbor.*  It  was  evi- 
dent that  the  Lombard  kings  were  determined  to  extend 
their  dominion  over  Italy.  Yet  Pope  Zacharias,  in  return 
for  favors  rendered  to  them,  obtained  from  them  the  gift, 
first  of  Sutri,  and  then  of  four  other  towns,  which  had  been 

*  See,  on  this  point,  Sugenheim's  work  (the  title  of  which  is  given 
above),  p.  68  seq.  This  very  thorough  monograph  throws  light  on  many 
difficult  questions  connected  with  our  subject. 


THE    TE^IPOEAL    KINGDOM    OF    THE    POPES.  Tl 

wrested  by  them  from  the  Greek  empire.  The  Pope,  though 
still  the  subject  of  that  empire,  set  up  the  principle  that 
these  places,  being  the  property  of  the  Lombards  by  right 
of  conquest,  might  be  withheld  from  the  emperor  and 
granted  to  him.  In  truth,  this  gift  from  the  heretical  enemy 
was  the  beginning  of  the  Papal  kingdom.  But  when  the 
haughty  Aistulph,  in  749,  mounted  the  throne  of  the  Lom- 
bards, and  when,  having  seized  upca  Ravenna,  the  Exar- 
chate, Pentapolis,  and  the  Greek  territory  on  the  Adriatic 
as  far  as  Istria,  he  turned  his  arms  against  Rome,  the  Pope 
saw  no  way  of  escape  from  the  imminent  peril  into  which  he 
was  thrown,  except  by  imploring  the  intervention  of  Pepin, 
king  of  the  Franks.  Fortunately  Pepin  was  obliged  to  the 
Pope  for  lending  a  religious  sanction  to  the  usurpation  by 
which  he  had  dethroned  the  Merovingian  family,  the  f oim- 
der  of  the  new  dynasty  having  been  anointed,  in  752,  at 
Soissons,  by  Boniface,  according  to  the  direction  of  Zacha- 
rias,  and  having  been  absolved  afterwards  from  his  violated 
oath  of  fealty  to  Childeric  EI.,  the  last  representative  of  the 
old  line.  In  two  campaigns  (754-5),  the  Lombards  were  de- 
feated, and  expelled  from  their  new  conquests ;  and  Pepin 
now  gave  to  the  Pope  the  Exarchate  and  the  Pentapolis. 
He  had  won  these  territories,  he  said,  not  for  the  Greek 
emperor,  but  for  St.  Peter. 

What  was  now  the  position  and  what  were  the  rights  of 
the  Pope,  as  a  secular  prince  ?  This  is  a  nice  and  difl3.cult 
question  to  determine.  The  Pope  received,  the  name  and 
title  of  Patricius  over  the  Exarchate,  while  Pepin  became 
Patricius  of  Rome.  In  regard  to  the  donation  of  Pepin,  it 
is  a  controverted  question  whether  it  made  over  to  the  Pope 
the  rights  of  sovereignty,  or  only  the  property  and  incomes 
which  had  formerly  belonged  to  the  Byzantine  emperor. 
The  great  German  lawyer,  Savigny,  is  decidedly  of  opinion 
that  the  rights  of  sovereignty  were  included.*     Sugenheim 


*  Savigny,  Das  Bomische  Becht,  vol.  i. ,  p.  358. 


72  THE   TEMPOEAL   KINGDOM   OF   THE   POPES. 

holds  that  this  was  probably  not  the  original  idea,  but  rather 
the  interpretat'on  successfully  affixed  to  the  donation  by  the 
Popes.*  The  gift  of  Pepin  was  made  to  the  Pope  and  the 
Eoman  Kepublic:  and  it  is  further  declared  by  Savigny 
that  "  the  Roman  Republic,"  as  the  representative  of  which 
the  Pope  appears,  "  was  not  the  city  of  Rome,  still  less  the 
Greek  empire ; "  "it  was  rather  the  old  Western  empire, 
which  in  this  small  compass,  though  as  yet  without  a  visible 
head,  was  again  restored,  the  idea  of  its  formal  restoration, 
which  was  soon  to  follow,  being,  perhaps,  already  present."  f 
It  seems  clear  that  Patricius  was  an  honorary  title  which 
carried  with  it  no  very  definite  prerogatives.  It  involved 
the  right  and  duty  of  affording  protection.  We  may  con- 
clude, then,  that  by  this  transaction  the  Pope  acquired,  in 
reference  to  the  greater  part  of  what  was  afterwards  called 
Romagna,  a  station  similar  to  that  held  by  the  former  Ex- 
archs, with  the  difference  that  the  superior  to  whom  he 
would  be  subordinate  was  an  ideal  personage,  the  future 
head  of  the  Western  empire,  which  had  not  then  been 
reconstituted.  In  respect  to  Rome,  it  is  remarkable  that  the 
Pope  still  kept  up  the  show  of  allegiance  to  the  Eastern 
empire,  his  motive  being  a  jealous  desire  to  prevent  the  Pa- 
triciate of  Pepin  over  the  eternal  city  from  passing  into  an 
imperial  function. 

Such  was  the  position  of  the  Pope,  as  a  temporal  ruler, 
up  to  the  time  of  Charlemagne.  The  overthrow  of  the 
Lombard  kingdom  by  this  monarch,  in  773,  was  followed  by 
a  confirmation  of  the  gift  of  Pepin  to  the  Pope,  increased  by 
the  addition  of  a  few  places  in  Tuscany.  Charlemagne  had 
acquired  a  supremacy  and  a  conceded  authority  which  his 
coronation  by  the  Pope  recognized  rather  than  created.  The 
patriciate,  by  the  course  of  events,  had  grown  into  the  im- 
perial office ;  and  the  treaty  of  Charlemagne  with  the  East- 
em  emperor,  Nicephorus,  in  803,  formerly  designated  the 

*  Sugenheim,  p.  27.  f  Savigny,  p.  361. 


THE   TEMPOKAL    KINGDOM    OB"    THE    POPES.  73 

portions  of  Italy  with  wliicli  we  are  concerned,  among  the 
territories  of  the  Western  emperor. 


n. 

^  Toward  Charlemagne  and  his  immediate  successors  the 
^  Popes  stood  in  the  relation  of  feudal  dependence,  analogous 
to  that  held  by  other  ecclesiastical  nobles  who  were  subjects 
of  the  empire,  although  the  Roman  bishop,  in  point  of  eccle- 
siastical and  spiritual  dignity,  had,  of  course,  the  highest 
rank.  VTlie  Popes  were  obliged  to  take  an  oath  of  fidelity  to 
the  emperor,  acknowledging  him  to  be  their  lord  and  judge. 
Xot  only  was  their  election  incomplete  without  the  imperial 
sanction,  but  they  were  held  to  account  when  charges  were 
preferred  against  them.  Thus  an  inquiry  was  instituted 
against  Leo  III.  for  executing  certain  Pomans ;  and  at  the 
time  when  Lothaire  I.  was  crowned  at  Pome,  in  823,  Pope 
Paschal  I.,  on  the  complaint  of  the  abbot  of  the  monastery 
Farfa,  was  obliged  to  restore  to  the  latter  all  the  property 
which  had  been  unjustly  taken  from  his  monastery. 

The  Popes  were  constantly  striving  to  release  themselves 
fi'om  their  subjection  to  the  princes  of  the  family  of  Charle- 
magne. The  end  they  had  in  view  was  to  free  themselves 
from  the  need  of  procuring  a  ratification  of  their  election 
from  the  emperor ;  and  they  even  sought  to  give  currency 
to  the  idea  that  the  imperial  office  was  bestowed  by  them. 
Occasionally,  an  able  man  like  Nicholas  I.  (858-867),  favored 
by  circumstances  and  strengthened  by  popular  support,  real- 
ized in  a  measure  the  Papal  aspirations  after  independence 
and  control.  But,  as  a  general  rule,  through  nearly  the 
whole  of  the  ninth  century,  the  Poman  bishops  were  foiled/ 
in  these  attempts.  They  profited,  however,  by  the  conflicts 
in  which  the  Frank  princes  were  engaged  with  one  another, 
and  in  which  they  were  frequently  induced  by  the  interest 
of  the  hour  to  appeal  to  ecclesiastical  arbitration  and  to  ad- 
4 


74  THE  TEMPORAL   KINGDOM   OF  THE  POPES. 

vance  their  pretensions  by  obtaining  episcopal  unction.  The 
disorders  and  divisions  in  the  Frank  empire  were  rather 
fomented  than  hindered  bj  the  ambitious  Popes,  who,  in  the 
turmoil  that  followed  the  downfall  of  that  empire,  gained 
for  a  time  their  long-coveted  independence.* 

Their  success  proved  their  worst  misfortune.  The  next 
century  and  a  half  is  the  most  disgraceful  era  in  the  whole 
history  of  the  papacy.  The  dangers  to  which  the  Popes 
were  exposed  in  the  midst  of  the  wild  factions  of  contending 
Italian  nobles  led  them  to  parcel  out  a  great  part  of  their 
territory  outside  of  Eome  among  feudatories,  as  a  rew^ard  for 
services  rendered  and  expected.  The  same  weakening  of  the 
central  authority,  the  same  stniggles  for  independence  on 
the  part  of  the  vassals,  and  for  ascendancy  on  the  side  of 
their  liege,  ensued  here  as  among  the  nations  north  of  the 
Alps.  The  easy  subjection  of  the  Popes  to  the  Frank  princes 
was  exchanged  for  a  galling  servitude  under  violent  and  ra- 
pacious nobles.  For  a  long  series  of  years  the  Counts  of 
Tuscany,  and  aft.er  them  the  Counts  of  Tusculum — two 
branches  of  the  same  house — disposed  of  Rome  and  the  Pa- 
pal office  at  their  will.  Three  prostitutes,  Theodora,  and  her 
daughters,  Marozia  and  Theodora,  made  and  deposed  Popes, 
even  placing  their  paramours  and  bastard  sons  in  the  chair 
of  St.  Peter.  At  length,  in  933,  Pope  John  XI.,  who  was 
perhaps  a  son  of  the  vile  Pope  Sergius  III.  by  Marozia,  was 


*  It  was  in  the  ninth  century  that  the  Pseudo-Isi dorian  Decretals  ap. 
peared — that  collection  of  forged  papers  by  which  the  prerogatives  con- 
ceded to  the  Pope  in  that  age,  and  even  higher  prerogatives  than  were 
generally  conceded  to  him  then,  were  ascribed  to  his  predecessors  in  the 
first  three  centuries.  Among  these  spurious  documents  was  the  pretended 
deed  of  Constantine,  giving  to  Pope  Sylvester  his  Western  dominions. 
The  forgery  is  a  clumsy  one.  For  example,  the  author  of  it  conceives  of 
the  Western  empire  as  it  was  in  the  eighth  century — as  comprising  only 
some  provinces  of  Italy.  The  spurious  character  of  this  document  is  gen- 
erally acknowledged.  Yet  Baronius,  and  some  other  Catholic  writers, 
seek,  against  all  evidence,  to  maintain  the  fact  of  such  a  gift.  See  Gies- 
eler,  Church  History y  vol.  ii.,  p.  118,  n. 


THE   TEMPORAL   KINGDOM   OF   THE   POPES.  75 

imprisoned  by  his  own  brother  Alberich  in  the  castle  of  St. 
Angelo,  and  was  forced  to  act,  even  in  spiritual  things,  as 
his  passive  instrument.  Until  the  year  954,  this  Alberich, 
under  the  title  of  Prince  and  First  Senator  of  the  Romans, 
ruled  with  despotic  authority  over  the  city  and  the  adjacent 
territory  ;  and,  after  the  death  of  John  XI.,  set  up  in  suc- 
cession four  Popes,  w^hom  he  restricted  to  the  exercise  of 
their  spiritual  functions.  At  his  death  all  power  fell  into 
the  hands  of  his  son  Octavian,  a  vicious  youth  of  less  than 
eighteen  years  of  age,  who,  on  assuming  the  tiara,  set  the 
fashion,  which  has  since  been  copied,  of  adopting  a  new 
name,  and  called  himself  John  XII.  To  protect  liimseK 
against  Berengar  II.,  King  of  Italy,  this  profligate  wretch 
invoked  the  aid  of  Otho  I.,  the  German  emperor ;  but  the 
interposition  of  Otho  brought  but  a  momentaiy  relief  from 
the  frightful  disorder  and  degradation  in  the  affairs  of  the 
papacy.  Finally,  the  German  emperor,  Henry  III.,  ap- 
peared to  reestablish,  with  a  strong  hand,  the  imperial  power 
in  Italy ;  and  at  the  Synod  of  Sutri,  in  1046,  he  caused  the 
Papal  chair  to  be  declared  vacant,  and,  the  three  rival  claim- 
ants havmg  been  summarily  set  aside,  one  of  Henry's  own 
bishops  was  elected  to  the  vacant  place,  under  the  name  of 
Clement  II.  From  this  time  the  influence  of  Ilildebrand 
becomes  predominant.  The  S^mod  of  Sutri  marks  an  epoch 
in  the  record  of  the  Papal  dominion.  The  imperial  power 
and  influence  are  seen  at  their  culminating  pointj 


m. 

A  notable  event  in  the  progress  of  the  Papal  dominion  in 
Italy  was  the  famous  bequest  of  Matilda,  Countess  of  Tus- 
cany, to  the  Papal  See.  This  enterprising  and  gifted  woman, 
the  fast  friend  and  supporter  of  Ilildebrand,  bequeathed  her 
territories,  comprising  a  fourth  part  of  the  Peninsula,  to  the 
Eoman  Church.     Whether  this  gift  was  intended  to  include 


76  THE   TEMPORAL   KINGDOM   OF   THE   POPES. 

anything  more  than  her  allodial  property,  and  what  portion 
of  her  possessions  was  allodial  and  what  held  in  fief,  it  is  im- 
possible to  say.  To  dispose  of  territory  held  in  fief  would 
be  utterly  contrary  to  law,  and  to  all  the  ideas  of  the  time. 
But  the  ambiguous  character  of  the  bequest  in  these  respects 
opened  the  way  for  the  assertion  of  a  claim  on  the  part  of 
the  Popes  to  the  whole,  and  contributed  eventually  to  the 
long  and  bitter  strife  with  the  emperors.  Gieseler  observes 
that  "  because  the  feudal  relations  of  these  lands  to  the  em- 
peror were  at  that  time  much  relaxed,  the  Pope  was  inclined 
to  regard  them  as  allodial,  while  the  emperor,  by  virtue  of 
his  ancient  right,  laid  claim  to  all  landed  possessions  at  least, 
as  fiefs  of  the  empire."  *  Certain  it  is  that  the  Popes  were 
determined  to  incorporate  the  fiefs  in  their  own  kingdom,  es- 
pecially the  most  valuable  of  them,  Tuscany,  Spoleto,  and 
Camerino. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  twelfth  century  there  appeared  a 
fresh  element  of  disturbance  in  the  Papal  kingdom,  of  a 
portentous  character.  This  was  the  newly-awakened  spirit 
of  the  Koman  people.  Heretofore,  the  populace  of  Rome 
had  been  of  little  account.  Emperor,  Pope,  and  nobles,  in 
all  their  conflicts  with  one  another,  had  united  in  keeping 
down  the  people,  and  reducing  them  to  political  insignifi- 
cance. But  now  a  new  era  had  arisen.  The  aspirations  of 
the  Lombard  towns  after  municipal  independence  and  free 
government  had  spread  southward.  The  popular  feeling  in 
Rome  found  an  organ  and  a  leader  in  the  disciple  of  Abe- 
lard,  Arnold  of  Brescia.  He  demanded  that  the  clerical  or- 
der, from  the  Pope  downwards,  should  give  up  their  claim 
to  secular  rule,  and  should  possess  no  secular  property.  He 
was  heard  with  enthusiasm,  and  his  doctrine  spread  like-  a 
contagion.  After  he  had  been  driven  out  of  Italy  by  the 
anathema  of  the  second  Lateran  Council,  the  Roman  people 
renoimced  their  allegiance  to  Innocent  II.,  and,  in  1143,  set 

*  Gieseler,  Church  History  (Prof.  Smith's  ed.),  vol.  i.,  p.  273. 


THE   TElklPOEAL   KINGDOM   OF   THE   POPES.  77 

up  a  government  of  their  own,  placing  supreme  power  in  the 
hands  of  a  senate.  They  were  strengthened  by  the  arrival 
of  Arnold  with  several  thousand  Swiss  soldiers.  In  an  un- 
successful attack  upon  the  new  government  in  the  capitol, 
Pope  Lucius  II.  was  hit  with  a  stone,  and  received  a  mortal 
wound.  The  people  wished  to  restore  the  old  imperial  con- 
stitution, and  accordingly  invited  Conrad  III.,  and  after- 
wards Frederic  I.,  to  assume  this  imperial  character  and 
make  their  abode  in  Eome.  Pope  Hadrian  lY.  persuaded 
the  Romans  to  banish  Arnold,  whose  unpractical  and  imag- 
inative spirit  had  hindered  him  fi'om  succeeding  in  his 
plans.  By  the  Emperor  Frederic,  who  was  bitterly  hostile 
to  republicanism,  and  was  bent  on  humbling  the  Lombard 
towns,  as  well  as  desirous  to  receive  the  imperial  crown, 
Arnold  was  delivered  up  to  the  Pope,  who  made  such  haste 
to  destroy  him,  that  the  Romans,  who  rushed  to  the  Piazza 
del  Popolo  to  effect  a  rescue,  found  only  his  ashes. 

We  pass  to  the  Pontifical  reign  of  the  ablest  of  the  Popes, 
a  man  of  great  virtues,  shaded  by  serious  faults,  Innocent 
III.  All  the  circumstances,  especially  the  minority  of  Fred- 
eric 11. ,  and  the  disordered  state  of  the  empire,  facilitated 
the  accomplishment  of  the  ends  which  Innocent  set  before 
him.  He  drove  the  vassals  of  the  empire  out  of  the  terri- 
tory of  Matilda,  taking  possession  of  the  March  of  Ancona, 
the  Dakedom  of  Spoleto,  the  Earldom  of  Agnisi,  the  Mar- 
quisates  of  Tuscany,  Radicofani,  Aquapendente,  Montefias- 
cone,  and  the  rest ;  so  that  his  admiring  biographer,  Hurter, 
claims  for  him  the  honor  of  being  the  founder  of  the  States 
of  the  Church.  More  important  .was  the  concession  which 
he  extorted  from  Otho  lY.,  one  of  the  three  competitors 
for  the  imperial  crown,  as  the  condition  of  supporting  his 
cause,  and  of  declaring  in  his  favor.  On  the  eighth  of 
June,  1201,  Otho  bound  himself  by  a  solemn  engagement 
to  protect,  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  all  the  possessions,  rights, 
and  honors  of  the  Apostolic  See ;  to  leave  the  Pope  in  un- 
disturbed possession  of  the  territories  which  he  had  won 


78  THE   TEMPORAL   KINGDOM   OF  THE   POPES. 

back,  and  to  help  the  Holy  See  both  in  defending  them, 
and  reconquering  those  not  yet  gained.  Under  these  pos- 
sessions were  embraced  all  the  territory  from  Radicofani 
to  Ceperano,  also  the  Exarchate  of  Ravenna,  the  former 
Pentapolis,  the  March  of  Ancona,  the  Dukedom  of  Spoleto, 
the  allodial  property  of  Matilda,  the  Earldom  of  Bertinaro, 
together  with  the  bordering  territories  which  the  Roman 
bishops  had  acquired  from  the  Western  emperors  since  the 
days  of  Louis  the  Pious.  The  provinces  here  enumerated 
comprise  the  principal  territories  of  the  modern  Papal 
States.  The  violation  of  his  agreement  by  Otho  turned  In- 
nocent's friendship  into  bitter  hostility,  and  ultimately  led 
him  to  bring  forward  the  young  Frederic  of  Sicily  (Frederic 
n.),  and  powerfully  to  support  his  pretensions  to  the  em- 
pire. This  support  was  not  given,  however,  until  Frederic 
had  renewed  and  ratified  the  concessions  previously  made  by 
Otho.  The  equally  perfidious  violation  of  this  treaty  by 
Frederic  was  a  leading  cause  of  that  long  and  dreadful  con- 
flict with  the  Popes,  which  ended  in  the  complete  overthrow 
of  the  house  of  Hohenstaufen. 

In  the  progress  of  this  conflict,  the  cities  in  the  Papal 
kingdom  wrested  concessions  from  the  Popes,  by  which  they 
acquired  for  the  time  a  large  measure  of  municipal  fi*eedom 
and  independence.  It  is  remarkable  that  while  the  Lom- 
bard towns  followed  the  Popes  in  their  contest  against  the 
Ghibelline  or  imperial  interest,  the  immediate  subjects  of 
the  Holy  See  were  often  found  on  the  other  side.  This  was 
owing  to  the  fact  that,  although  the  Popes,  out  of  hostility 
to  the  emperors,  and  the  desire  to  gain  the  victory  over 
them,  allied  themselves  to  the  freedom-loving  cities,  they 
were  still  at  heart  inimical  to  republicanism,  and  were  im- 
politic enough  to  betray  their  real  temper  and  policy  to- 
wards their  own  cities,  in  case  no  pressing  emergency  com- 
pelled an  opposite  course.  By  the  aid  of  Charles  of  Anjou, 
to  whom  they  had  given  the  crown  of  Sicily,  they  succeed- 
ed in  recovering  Rome  from  the  imperial  party,  and  destroy- 


THE  te:mpoeal  kingdom  of  the  popes.  79 

ing  Conradin,  the  last  of  the  Hohenstaufens.  In  1275,  they 
had  the  satisfaction  of  receiving  fi-om  Rudolph  of  Hapsburg 
a  full  and  most  explicit  ratification  of  the  deed  of  surrender, 
which  Otho  lY/and  Frederic  11.  had  given  and  disregarded. 
This  deed  has  been  properly  considered  the  Magna 
Charta  of  the  Pope's  temporal  dominion. 

lY. 

It  was  one  thing  to  acquire  a  title  to  these  rich  posses- 
sions, and  quite  another  thing  to  get  and  to  retain  them.  The 
turbulent  cities,  accustomed  now  to  a  good  measure  of  self- 
government  and  strengthened  by  pi-ivileges  granted  by  the 
Popes  in  times  of  distress,  could  not  easily  be  brought  into 
subjection.  The  factions  of  Guelfs  and  Ghibellines,  raged 
in  them,  and  the  result,  as  in  other  Italian  towns,  was  the 
elevation  to  power  of  certain  noble  and  distinguished  famil- 
ies. Such  were  the  houses  of  Polenta  in  Ravenna,  of  Mala- 
testa  in  Rimini,  of  Yarano  in  Camerino  and  in  other  places 
in  the  March  of  Ancona,  and  of  Montef  eltro  in  Urbino. 

It  was  the  repugnance  of  Boniface  YIII.  to  the  family  of 
Colonna,  whose  ovei'shadowing  influence  at  Rome  became 
intolerable  to  him,  that  finally  led  to  "  the  Babylonian  cap- 
tivity," or  the  residence  of  the  Popes  for  about  seventy  years 
at  Avignon.  Determined  to  get  possession  of  their  fortified 
places,  Boniface  sought  means  of  capturing  the  apparently 
impregnable  stronghold,  Palestrina.*     At  length  he  applied 

*  The  truth  of  the  story  relative  to  the  transaction  with  G-uido  di  Mon- 
tefeltro  is  denied  by  Cardinal  Wiseman  in  his  Article  on  Boniface  VIII. 
{Essays  on  Various  Subjects^  vol.  iii.).  The  story  is  given  by  many 
authors,  including  Sismondi  {Republiques  Italiennes^  tome  iii.,  p.  91). 
Sismondi's  authorities  are  Dante,  his  commentator,  Benvenuto  da  Imola, 
and  two  contemporary  chroniclers,  Feretto  Vincentino  and  Pipino,  in 
Muratori  {Script.  Ital,  tom.  ix.,  pp.  731,  970).  Dante  {Inf.,  xxvii., 
81)  styles  Boniface  "  Lo  principe  di  nuovi  farisei."  It  is  represented  that 
Boniface  had  absolved  Guido  for  his  wicked  counsel  before  it  was  given. 
This  did  not  save  him  from  hell,  since 

"  No  power  can  the  impenitent  absolve." 


80  THE  TEMPORAL   KINGDOM  OF  TH^  POPES. 

for  aid  to  a  famous  old  soldier,  Guido  de  Montefeltro,  a  for- 
mer enemy  of  the  Popes,  but  now  reconciled  and  passing 

Dante  makes  Guido,  in  the  midst  of  the  flames,  relate  circumstantially  the 
fatal  seduction  by  which  "  the  chief  of  the  new  Pharisees  "  misled  him, 
having  given  him  the  promise  of  impunity.  Another  not  at  all  flattering 
allusion  to  Boniface  is  in  Parad.^  xxvii.,  22;  and  elsewhere  {Inf.^  xix. 
52).  Dante  condemns  him  to  hell.  In  the  last  passage,  the  spirit  in  hell 
mistakes  Dante  for  Boniface,  who,  at  the  date  of  the  poet's  vision,  was  not 
dead.  It  is  the  same  canto  in  which  Pope  Nicholas  V.  is  doomed  to  a 
like  fate,  and  in  which,  in  allusion  to  the  pretended  gift  of  Constantine 
to  Pope  Sylvester,  the  poet  exclaims  : — 

"  Ah,  Constantine !  to  how  much  ill  gave  birth, 
Not  thy  conversion,  but  that  plenteous  dower 
Which  the  first  wealthy  father  gain'd  from  thee." 

In  regard  to  Ferreto,  Muratori,  as  Wiseman  truly  states,  adds  a  note  to 
Ferreto's  account  of  Guido,  in  which  the  critic  questions  the  truth  of  the 
story.  He  observes  : — "  Probosi  hujus  facinoris  narrationis  fidem  adjun- 
gere  nemo  probus  velit  quod  facile  confinxerint  Bonifacii  aemuli,"  etc. 
In  the  Annali  d* Italia,  vol.  xi.,  p.  648,  the  same  critic  expresses  his 
doubt  of  the  truth  of  the  anecdote  respecting  Guido,  though  he  quotes  G. 
Villani  {Istor.  Fiorent.^  lib.  viii.,  c.  6)  to  the  effect  that  Boniface  was 
troubled  by  no  scruples  when  there  was  something  to  be  gained.  Mura- 
tori also  suggests  that  the  story  of  the  advice  of  Guido  may  have  arisen 
from  the  subsequent  events — namely,  the  breach  of  faith  with  the  Co- 
lonnas.  This  last  fact  he  appears  not  to  reject.  Although  it  is  called  in 
question  by  Wiseman,  it  rests  upon  strong  evidence.  In  the  proceeding 
before  Clement  VIL ,  after  the  death  of  Boniface,  the  Colonnas  averred 
that  they  had  been  cheated  in  the  manner  described.  The  proofs  are 
given  in  Sugenheim.  p.  208.  The  circumstances  are  stated  by  G.  Villani, 
lib.  viii.,  c.  64.  Villani  wrote  soon  after  the  event.  See  also,  Fleury, 
Hist.  Ecclesiast,  tom.  xviii.,  p.  240.  Considering  the  manner  in  which 
the  anecdote,  as  to  the  advice  of  Guido,  is  given  by  Dante,  even  though 
his  Ghibelline  hostility  to  Boniface,  as  Muratori  observes,  impairs  the 
value  of  his  testimony, — and  considering,  also,  the  other  authorities  in  its 
favor,  we  are  hardly  justified  in  rejecting  it  as  false.  It  is  believed  by 
Sugenheim,  by  Milman  {Latin  Chrifttianity ,  vol.  vi.,  p.  228)  by  Schrockh 
{Kirchengeschichte,  vol.  xxvi.,  p.  531) — who  supports  his  opinion  by  an 
argument — and  by  others.  Schwab,  in  the  Roman  Catholic  TJieologiscJie 
Quartalselirift  (No.  1,  1866),  admits  that  Wiseman,  as  well  as  Toste,  the 
Catholic  biographer  of  Boniface,  in  their  attempted  vindication  of  him, 
are  biased  by  excited  feelings  consequent  on  the  injustice  which  they 
suppose  him  to  have  suffered. 


THE   TEMPORAL    KINGDOM   OF    THE    POPES.  81 

the  evening  of  his  days  in  a  cloister.  The  veteran  de- 
clined to  take  the  field,  told  Boniface  that  the  place  could 
not  be  captured  by  force  of  arms,  but  advised  him,  as  a 
means  of  obtaining  it,  to  promise  much  and  perform  little. 
The  Pope  but  too  faithfully  obeyed  the  iniquitous  counsel. 
This  perfidy  still  further  exasperated  the  great  family  which 
he  was  seeking  to  extirpate.  It  was  Sciarra  Colonna  who, 
in  connection  with  William  of  Nogaret,  the  emissary  of 
Philip  the  Fair,  made  an  attack  upon  the  person  of  the  old 
Pope,  then  staying  in  Anagni,  and  inflicted  such  injuries 
that  he  died  on  the  11th  of  October,  1133.  The  papacy, 
brought  under  French  influence,  was  now  transferred  to 
Avignon.*  Contrary  to  a  common  idea,  the  residence  of  the 
Popes  in  France  did  not  result  in  the  weakening,  but  rather 
in  the  temporary  restoration  of  their  power  as  secular 
princes.  This  unexpected  result  was  due  to  several  causes. 
The  local  dynasties  which  had  risen  to  power  in  Italy  in  the 
com'se  of  the  last  half  of  the  thirteenth  century,  were  divi- 
ded amongst  themselves ;  and  the  Pope  could  skilfully  avail 
himself  of  their  mutual  jealousies  and  conflicts  to  turn  one 
against  another.  Moreover,  the  close  connection  of  the 
Papal  feudatories,  the  kings  of  Kaples  of  the  house  of  An- 
jou,  with  their  liege,  gave  him  a  strong  ally.  And  finally, 
the  Pontiffs  in  Avignon  played  anew  the  part  of  their 
predecessors  who,  in  the  contest  with  the  Ilohenstaufen 
emperors,  had  taken  the  attitude  of  friends  and  protectors 
of  the  Italian  municipalities  in  their  pursuit  of  freedom. 
By  means  of  Cardinal  Albornoz,  an  able  Spaniard,  the  Popes 
succeeded,  while  personally  absent  from  Italy,  in  recovering 
and  reimiting  nearly  the  whole  of  their  former  cities  and 
territories.  They  even  succeeded  in  using  for  their  own 
ends  the  eloquence  and  popularity  of  Cola  di  Rienzi.     At  a 


*  Avignon  was  afterwards,  in  1348,  bought  by  tbe  Papal  See  of  Joanna, 
Queen  of  Naples  and  Countess  of  Provence.     Venaissin  was  presented  to 
the  Pope  m  1273,  by  King  Philip  III. 
4* 


82  THE   TEMPORAL    KINGDOM   OF   THE   POPES. 

time  when  Rome  was  filled  with  anarchy  and  violence, 
through  the  agency  of  the  nobles  who  sallied  from  the 
strongholds  which  they  had  built  in  the  city,  to  engage  in 
bloody  fights  in  the  streets,  this  political  and  religious  en- 
thusiast became  .the  author  of  a  successful  revolution,  in 
which  he  installed  himself  as  tribime,  compelling  the  nobles 
to  surrender  their  fortresses,  and  restoring  order.  Unhap- 
pily he  quickly  betrayed  an  unbalanced  character,  and  by 
his  costly  pomps  and  shows  disgusted  the  people,  caused  the 
Pope  to  declare  against  him,  and  was  at  length  driven  from 
Eome.  Arrested  a  few  years  later  by  the  Emperor  Charles 
lY.,  he  was  sent  to  Avignon,  and  having  been  detained  for 
a  while  in  custody  by  the  Pope,  he  returned  to  Home  in 
company  with  Albornoz,  and  materially  aided  the  latter  in 
conciliating  the  popular  favor.  But  his  vanity  and  self -in- 
dulgence excited  renewed  hostility  against  him,  and  in  1354 
he  was  assassinated. 

Hardly  were  the  Popes  back  again  in  Rome,  before  they 
threw  away  the  great  prize  which  the  energy  and  sagacity 
of  Albornoz  had  won  for  them.  They  set  about  the  busi- 
ness of  depriving  the  cities  in  their  domain  of  the  privi- 
leges which  had  been  wisely  conceded  to  them  by  Albor- 
noz ;  and,  in  order  to  crush  republicanism  more  effectually, 
they  even  attempted  to  rob  the  Tuscan  towns  of  their  inde- 
pendence. The  result  was  that  the  Papal  subjects  anew 
broke  off  their  allegiance,  which  Albornoz  had  regained 
with  so  much  painstaking.  If  the  Popes  retained,  and  even 
recovered,  their  temporal  power  during  their  residence  in 
Avignon,  the  effect  of  the  great  schism,  lasting  from  1378 
to  the  Council  of  Constance  in  1417,  a  period  in  which  two 
and  sometimes  three  rival  Popes  were  struggling  to  sup- 
plant each  other,  was  quite  the  opposite.  In  the  cities  of 
the  Papal  kingdom  the  old  dynasties  revived  and  new  ones 
sprang  up ;  towns  and  territories  were  ceded  to  nobles  in 
fief,  so  that  the  exhausted  Papal  treasury  might  have  a  new 
source  of  income ;  to  the  old  republics  within  their  domain, 


THE   TEMPORAL   KINGDOM    OF   THE   POPES.  83 

as  Home,  Perugia,  and  Bologna,  the  Popes  found  it  neces- 
sary to  concede  a  degree  of  republican  freedom,  that  almost 
amounted  to  independence,  and  like  privileges  were  even 
granted  to  cities  that  had  never  before  enjoyed  them.  In 
short,  the  Papal  kingdom  was  dissolved  and  broken  up  in 
this  eventful  period  which  was  equally  detrimental  to  the 
temporal  and  spiritual  dominion  of  the  Poman  bishops. 
The  steps  by  which  subsequent  Pontiffs,  beginning  with 
Nicholas  Y.,  who  became  Pope  in  1447,  regained  by  de- 
grees, through  patient  and  prudent  efforts,  the  inheritance 
w^hich  the  folly  of  their  predecessors  had  lost,  we  cannot  at- 
tempt, in  this  brief  sketch,  to  relate. 


Y. 

As  we  approach  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
we  come  to  a  period  of  moral  degradation  in  the  papacy, 
having  no  parallel  save  in  the  tenth  century,  when  harlots 
disposed  of  the  sacred  office.  "The  governments  of  Eu- 
rope," says  Panke,  "  were  stripping  the  Pope  of  a  portion 
of  his  privileges,  while  at  the  same  time  the  latter  began 
to  occupy  himself  exclusively  with  worldly  concerns."  *  To 
found  an  Italian  kingdom  for  his  own  family,  to  carve  out 
principalities  for  his  own  relations,  was  the  darling  object  of 
his  ambition.  This  shameful  era  may  be  said  to  begin  with 
Sixtus  lY.,  Pope  from  1471  to  1484.  He  conceived  the 
plan  of  founding  a  State  in  Pomagna  for  his  nephew,  or, 
if  we  may  believe  MacchiaveUi's  assertion,  his  natural  son, 
Jerome  Riario.  Opposed  in  his  schemes  by  Florence,  he 
entered  into  the  foul  conspiracy  for  assassinating  Lorenzo 
and  Julian  de  Medici,  which  was  concocted  by  the  Pazzi. 
In  the  midst  of  the  solemn  service  of  the  Mass,  at  the  sig- 
nal given  by  the  elevation  of  the  host,  a  fierce  attack  was 

*  Ranke,  History  of  the  Popes  of  Borne  during  the  Sixteenth  and 
Seventeenth  Centuries,  vol.  i.,  p.  45. 


84  THE   TEMPORAL   KINGDOM   OF  THE   POPES. 

made  upon  them ;  but  while  Julian  fell,  Lorenzo  escaped. 
The  speedy  execution,  without  the  forms  of  a  trial  before  an 
ecclesiastical  tribunal,  of  the  priests  who  had  been  engaged 
in  this  murderous  assault,  afforded  the  Pope  a  pretext  for 
venting  his  chagrin  at  its  failure  by  launching  his  spiritual 
thunders  against  Florence  and  its  ruler.  He  joined  Ferdi- 
nand of  Naples  in  making  war  upon  Lorenzo,  whose  con- 
summate boldness  and  skill  in  drawing  ofP  Ferdinand  from 
the  alliance  saved  him  from  ruin.  Next,  Jerome  coveted 
Ferrara,  held  in  fief  by 'th^  house  of  Este ;  and  the  Pope,  in 
alliance  with  Venice,  turned  his  arms  in  that  direction ;  but 
the  same  Pope,  seeing  thaf  they  were  to  gain  nothing,  de- 
serted Venice  and  excommunicated  her.  Vexation  at  his 
inability  to  subdue  this  republic  hastened  his  death.  Inno- 
cent VIII.  "  sought  with  a  still  more  profligate  vileness  to 
exalt  and  enrich  his  seven  illegitimate  children : "  and  for 
this  end  carried  on  two  wars  against  Ferdinand,  King  of 
Naples.  But  the  crimes  of  Sixtus  and  of  Innocent,  shock- 
ing as  they  were,  were  less  than  the  crimes  committed  by 
the  most  flagitious  of  all  the  Pontiffs,  Alexander  VI.  To 
give  riches  and  crowns  to  his  five  illegitimate  children,  and 
especially  to  his  favorite  son,  Csesar  Borgia,  he  exerted  all 
his  energies.  His  court  afforded  a  spectacle  of  luxury  and 
unbounded  sensuality.  Alexander  sided  with  Naples  against 
the  invader,  Charles  VIII.  of  France,  and  then,  for  a  price, 
deserted  his  ally.  In  1495,  he  joined  the  emperor  and  the 
King  of  Spain,  in  order  to  drive  the  French  out  of  Italy. 
Not  getting  enough  from  Naples  to  satisfy  him,  he  went 
over  to  Louis  XII.  of  France,  granting  to  Louis  a  divorce 
from  his  wife,  and  receiving,  among  other  benefits,  armed 
assistance  for  Caesar  Borgia,  who  made  war  upon  the  princi- 
pal vassals  of  the  church  and  carved  for  himself  a  domin- 
ion out  of  their  territories.  To  advance  the  interests  of 
this  monster  of  cruelty  and  perfidy,  Alexander  was  ready  to 
throw  away  even  the  show  of  truth  and  decency.  At  length 
the  poison  which  the  Pope  had  mixed  for  a  rich  cardinal 


THE    TEMPOKAL    KINGDOM    OF   THE   POPES.  86 

whom  he  wanted  to  rob,  he  drank  himseK  by  mistake,  and 
died  on  the  18th  of  August,  1503. 

Julius  II.  differed  from  his  immediate  predecessors  in  be- 
ing free  from  their  personal  vices  and  in  not  aiming  to  ag- 
grandize his  own  relations.  His  aim  was  to  build  up  and  ex- 
tend the  States  of  the  Church.  In  this  he  attained  to  great 
success.  He  satisfied  his  family  by  obtaining  for  them,  by 
peaceful  means,  the  patrimony  of  Urbino.  He  expelled 
Csesar  Borgia  from  his  dominion  and  seized  upon  it.  He 
brought  Perugia  and  Bologna  under  the  direct  rule  of  the 
Papal  See.  Unable  to  induce  the  Venetians  to  retire  from 
the  territories  of  the  Holy  See  on  the  coast,  he  organized 
the  league  of  Cambray,  and  compelled  them  to  surrender 
this  portion  of  the  dominions  of  the  church.  He  gained 
possession  of  Parma,  Piacenza,  and  Peggio,  and  of  all  the 
region  lying  between  Piacenza  and  Terracina.  He  had  es- 
tablished his  sway  over  all  the  territories  of  the  church  and 
consolidated  them  into  a  kingdom.  He  only  failed  in  a  sec- 
ond great  end  which  he  had  set  before  him — that  of  expell- 
ing the  foreigners,  or,  as  he  expressed  it,  of  "  driving  out 
the  barbarians "  from  Italy.  In  truth,  in  reaching  the  ob- 
ject of  his  ambition,  he  had  been  obliged  to  bring  in  for- 
eign intervention,  and  had  done  his  part  in  paving  the  way 
for  the  train  of  evils  which  were  destined  to  flow  from  it. 

In  their  efforts  to  preserve  the  fair  inheritance  which 
Julius  II.  had  left  to  them,  his  successors  were  obliged  to  in- 
volve themselves  in  the  intrigues  and  conflicts  of  European 
politics,  and  especially  in  the  long  contest  between  France 
and  Austria  for  power  and  predominance  in  Italy.  In  par- 
ticular did  the  acquisitions  made  by  Julius  II.  help  forward 
the  Protestant  Reformation.  The  Papal  control  over  Par- 
ma, Piacenza,  and  other  Lombard  towns,  Charles  Y.  re- 
garded as  a  usurpation ;  and,  at  the  critical  time  of  the 
Reformation,  he  was  not  disposed  to  strengthen  his  antago- 
nist by  stifling  the  Lutheran  movement.  In  like  manner, 
the  Popes  were  willing  to  use  that  movement  as  an  element 


86  THE   TEMPORAL   KINGDOM   OF   THE    POPES. 

of  discord  and  weakness  in  the  empire  of  Charles.  At  the 
moment  when  Charles  was  gaining  his  great  success  against 
the  Reformers,  in  the  Smalcaldic  war,  about  the  time  of  the 
battle  of  Miihlberg,  Pope  Paul  III.  sent  a  message  to  the 
King  of  France  "  to  support  those  who  were  not  yet  beaten," 
that  is,  to  aid  the  Protestants.  Francis,  the  Pope,  and  the 
Protestants  were  found,  on  occasions  of  vital  importance,  in 
virtual  alliance  with  each  other.  The  Protestant  cause  was 
saved  by  the  mutual  jealousies  and  the  selfish  rivalship  of 
its  enemies.  The  separation  of  England  from  the  Catholic 
Church  was  occasioned  by  the  refusal  of  Clement  YII.  to 
grant  the  application  of  Henry  YIII.  for  a  divorce — a  re- 
fusal that  w^as  due  to  the  political  relations  then  subsisting 
between  the  Pope  and  the  emperor. 

To  Julius  II.  belongs  the  distinction  of  founding  the 
Papal  kingdom  as  it  has  continued  down  to  a  recent  day.  It 
was  not,  however,  until  1598  that  Ferrara  was  brought  un- 
der the  immediate  sovereignty  of  the  Holy  See,  and  not  un- 
til 1649  that  the  Dukedom  of  Urbino  was  in  like  manner 
absorbed  into  the  Papal  kingdom.  By  the  treaties  of  1815, 
Austria  gained  a  small  strip  of  Papal  territory  situated  on 
the  left  bank  of  the  Po. 

YI. 

The  Papal  dominion  in  Italy  felt  the  shock  of  the  French 
Revolution,  which  caused  all  thrones  to  tremble.  In  1790 
the  French  ISTational  Assembly  incorporated  with  the  French 
kingdom  the  Papal  counties  of  Avignon  and  Yenaissin.  As 
the  Pope  joined  in  the  war  against  France,  I^apoleon,  in 
1797,  conquered  his  states  and  obliged  him,  in  the  peace  of 
Tolentino,  to  renounce  Avignon  and  Yenaissin  forever,  to 
give  up  the  Legations  of  Ferrara,  Bologna,  and  Romagna  to 
the  new  Cisalpine  Republic,  to  surrender  the  finest  works 
of  art  to  be  transported  to  Paris,  and  to  pay  the  costs  of  the 
war.     The  republican  feeling  spread  as  far  as  Rome,  and  in 


THE   TEMPORAL   KINGDOM   OF    THE    POPES.  87 

1798,  a  Roman  Kepublic  was  proclaimed  by  the  insurgent 
people.  Pius  YI.  was  carried  from  Rome  as  a  prisoner  and 
died  in  Yalence,  in  France,  in  1799.  During  the  absence 
of  Bonaparte  in  Egypt,  Italy  was  overrun  by  Suwarrow  at 
the  head  of  the  allied  army.  It  is  needless  to  recount  here 
the  particulars  of  the  prolonged  conflict  of  Pius  YII.  with 
Napoleon.  In  1809,  a  decree  of  the  French  emperor  united 
the  Papal  States  with  his  empire.  In  1814,  after  the  allies 
had  entered  France,  the  Pope  returned  to  Rome.  The  re- 
actionary policy  at  once  began  to  prevail,  and  the  French 
system  of  law  and  administration,  which  had  proved  so 
beneficial  to  the  Papal  States,  .was  overthrown.  At  the 
Congress  of  Yienna,  the  Pope  entered  a  protest  against  the 
cession  of  the  little  tract  of  territory  on  the  Po  to  Austria, 
as  well  as  against  the  retention  by  France  of  Avignon  and 
Yenaissin,  which,  as  we  have  said,  had  been  formally  given 
up.  The  maladministration  of  the  Papal  government,  espe- 
cially the  restoration  of  the  confiscated  ecclesiastical  property, 
brought  the  finances  of  the  kingdom  into  irretrievable  ruin. 
Up  to  the  accession  of  Pius  IX.,  there  was  no  sign  of  any 
disposition  to  vary  from  a  blind,  stubborn,  and  liberty-hat- 
ing conservatism.  Efforts  at  rebellion — as  those  at  Bologna 
in  1831 — had  been  suppressed  by  Austrian  soldiery.  The 
government  of  Gregory  XYI.  obstinately  set  itself  against 
every  enterprise  looking  towards  political  and  social  improve- 
ment, and  evinced  its  hatred  of  freedom  by  incarcerating 
thousands  of  political  offenders. 

The  accession  of  Pius  IX.,  in  1846,  to  the  Papal  chair, 
inspired  the  warmest  hopes.  He  set  free  six  thousand  po- 
litical prisoners.  He  earnestly  set  about  the  work  of  im- 
proving and  liberalizing  the  system  of  government.  He 
was  hailed  as  the  chief  of  the  liberal  party  in  Italy.  The 
Revolution  in  France,  in  1848,  was  followed  by  the  grant, 
from  the  Pope,  of  a  Constitution  embracing  liberal  provi- 
sions. The  insurrection  in  Lombardy,  against  the  Austrian 
rule,  led  to  the  breach  between  the  Pope,  who  refused  to 


88  THE    TEMPORAL    KINGDOM    OF   THE   POPES. 

engage  in  a  war  with  the  Austrians,  and  the  radical  party ; 
and  this  party  gaining  the  ascendancy,  after  the  assassination 
of  Rossi,  in  1848,  the  Pope  was  obhged  to  fly  from  Rome. 
The  Roman  Republic  was  overthrown  by  French  troops,  and 
the  Pope,  under  their  protection,  returned  to  Rome,  in  1850. 
Of  late,  the  progress  of  the  new  kingdom  of  Italy  has 
given  promise  that  the  yearning  for  Italian  unity  will  be  real- 
ized, and  that  the  temporal  rule  of  the  Pope  must  give  way 
to  the  demand  of  a  nation.  Upon  the  evacuation  of  the 
States  of  the  Church  by  the  Austrian  garrisons,  immediately 
after  the  victories  of  the  French  and  Sardinians  at  Magenta 
and  Melagnano,  in  the  summer  of  1859,  several  of  those  states 
at  once  revolted  from  the  Pope  and  proclaimed  Victor  Imman- 
uel  king.  The  Papal  government  succeeded  in  reconquer- 
ing them,  with  the  exception  of  Bologna,  Ferrara,  Ravenna, 
and  Forli.  After  the  peace  of  Yillaf ranca,  the  French  em- 
peror denied  the  application  of  the  Pope  for  aid  in  recover- 
ing these  legations  ;  and  their  formal  annexation  to  the  Sar- 
dinian kingdom  took  place  in  1860.  The  attempt  of  Lamori- 
ciere,  the  French  general  in  the  service  of  the  Pope,  to  re- 
cover them,  not  only  failed,  but  led  to  the  further  annexa- 
tion of  Umbria  and  the  Marches  of  Ancona  to  the  Italian 
kingdom.  Thus  there  was  left  to  the  Pope  only  the  comar- 
ca  of  Rome,  Civita  Yecchia,  Yelletri,  and  Frosinone,  hav- 
ing an  aggregate  population  of  about  half  a  million  of  in- 
habitants. The  Italian  statesmen  probably  expect  that  the 
retirement  of  the  French  garrison  from  Rome  will  be  at- 
tended with  the  same  result  that  followed  the  evacuation  of 
the  legations  by  the  Austrians  in  1859.  The  people  will 
rise,  overturn  the  government,  and  invite  Victor  Immanuel 
to  incorporate  them  among  his  subjects  and  establish  his 
court  at  Rome. 

After  this  historical  survey  we  are  prepared  to  consider 
what  have  been  the  character  and  effect  of  the  Pope's  secu- 
lar rule.     And  first,  in  respect  to  the  States  of  the  Church 


THE   TEMPORAL   KINGDOM   OF   THE   POPES.  89 

themselves,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  government  of 
the  Popes  has  been,  on  the  whole,  an  exceedingly  bad  govern- 
ment. On  this  point  there  can  be  no  serious  question  among 
enlightened  men.  The  exceptional  periods,  when  there  has 
been  an  improved  administration,  have  been  short  and  far 
between.  Since  the  French  Revolution,  the  great  powers, 
including  such  as  are  most  loyal  to  the  Catholic  Church  and 
to  the  Supreme  Bishop,  have  repeatedly  used  their  endeav- 
ors to  procure  reforms.  But  they  have  been  met  by  a  stiff 
refusal  to  depart  from  the  old  system.  It  is  supposed  that 
the  election  of  Pius  IX.  was  owing  to  the  conviction  that  the 
gross  misgovernment  at  Rome  could  not  long  continue ;  and 
that  his  liberal  measures  at  the  outset  of  his  reign  were  due 
to  this  feeling.  Now  the  vices  of  the  Papal  rule  are  not  ac- 
cidental ;  but  they  appear  to  belong  inseparably  to  a  govern- 
ment of  priests  like  that  which  the  Pope  has  been  so  long 
endeavoring  to  prop  up  by  foreign  bayonets.  The  settled 
disaffection  and  hostility  of  his  subjects  are  well  justified  by 
the  inherent  and  ineradicable  vices  of  a  priestly  administra- 
tion. 

The  effect  of  the  Popes'  temporal  sovereignty  on  Italy  has 
likewise  been  in  the  highest  degree  disastrous.  The  main- 
tenance of  their  teniporal  power  has  led  them  to  bring  in 
foreign  domination,  the  great  curse  of  the  peninsula,  and  to 
keep  Italy  divided.  Macchiavelli,  who  inscribed  his  History 
of  Florence  to  Clement  YII.,  says  that  "  all  the  wars  which 
were  brought  upon  Italy  by  the  barbarians  " — that  is,  foreign- 
ers— "  were  caused  for  the  most  part  by  the  Popes,  and  all 
the  barbarians  who  overrun  Italy  were  invited  in  by  them. 
This  has  kept  Italy  in  a  state  of  disunion  and  weakness." 
At  this  moment,  the  Pope's  temporal  dominion  is  the  one 
great  hindrance  to  the  realization  of  Italian  unity. 

When  we  inquire  as  to  the  influence  of  his  temporal  rule 
upon  his  character  and  influence  as  a  spiritual  ruler,  it  is  an 
open  question  whether  his  position  as  secular  prince  did  not, 
in  the  middle  ages,  protect  and  strengthen  the  papacy  in 


90  THE   TEMPOEAL   KINGDOM   OF   THE   POPES. 

general.  If  it  did,  and  if  the  papacy  in  these  times  is  ac- 
knowledged to  have  been,  on  the  whole,  a  beneficial  institu- 
tion, being  a  counterpoise  to  the  spirit  of  irreligion  and  law- 
less barbarism,  then  we  must  admit  that  the  temporal  power 
was  relatively  a  good  thing.  However  this  question  may  be 
answered,  it  is  clear  that  the  secular  power  of  the  Pope  has 
had  a  corrupting  and  pernicious  influeuce  upon  the  character 
of  his  spiritual  administration.  Bellarmine,  and  other  emi- 
nent Catholic  theologians  and  casuists,  have  explained  the 
consistency  between  the  spiritual  office  of  the  Pope,  and  his 
position  as  a  secular  prince  ;  and  have  held  that,  in  entire  con- 
sistency with  religion,  a  foreign  prince  or  state  may  wage 
war  with  him  in  his  character  as  an  earthly  sovereign.  But 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  as  is  w^ell  known,  the  Pontiffs  have  never 
refrained  from  using  the  spiritual  weapons  in  their  hands, 
as  the  excommunication  and  the  interdict,  for  the  further- 
ance of  the  temporal  interest.  They  have  turned  the  awful 
powers  of  discipline,  which  are  attributed  to  them,  for  the 
furtherance  of  their  political  schemes.  The  inevitable  efPect 
must  be,  and  has  been,  to  degrade  the  spiritual  function,  and 
rob  it  of  no  small  portion  of  the  reverence  which  it  might 
otherwise  excite  and  maintain.  Of  the  influence  of  the  secu- 
lar dominion  exercised  by  the  Popes,  and  of  the  court  which 
it  creates,  on  their  own  personal  character,  history  is  an  out- 
spoken witness.  The  covetousness,  the  ambition,  the  lux- 
ury, the  open  and  shameless  licentiousness,  the  atrocious 
crimes,  which  are  chargeable  on  too  many  of  the  Popes — 
offenses  which  have  moved  the  indignation  of  Catholic  his- 
torians like  Baronius,  and  poets  like  Petrarch  and  Dante — 
have  commonly  grown  out  of  the  temptations  incident  to  the 
temporal  sovereignty.  By  the  occupations  and  pleasures 
which  cluster  about  it.  Pontiffs  w4io  are  by  no  means  to  be 
counted  among  the  worst,  have  been  drawn  aside  from  the 
proper  work  and  character  of  Christian  bishops.  Father 
Paul,  after  praising  Leo  X.  for  his  erudition,  his  humanity, 
his  liberality,  his  love*  of  letters  and  arts,  adds,  with  fine  sa- 


THE   TEIVIPOEAL    KINGDOM   OF    THE   POPES.  91 

tire,  that  "  he  would  have  been  a  perfect  Pope,  if  with  these 
qualities,  he  had  united  some  knowledge  of  the  affairs  of  re- 
ligion, and  a  somewhat  greater  inclination  to  piety,  for  neither 
of  which  he  manifested  much  concern."*  Dante's  indig- 
nant protest  against  the  temporal  power  of  the  Roman 
bishops,  is  familiar  f  : — 

"  Laws  indeed  there  are 
But  who  is  he  observes  them  ?    None  ;    not  he, 
Who  goes  before,  the  shepherd  of  the  flock, 
Who  chews  the  cud,  but  does  not  cleave  the  hoof,:|: 
Therefore  the  multitude,  who  see  their  guide 
Strike  at  the  very  good  they  covet  most, 
Feed  there,  and  look  no  further.    Thus  the  cause 
Is  not  corrupted  nature  in  yourselves, 
But  ill-conducting,  that  hath  turn'd  the  world 
To  evil.     Rome,  that  turn'd  it  unto  good. 
Was  wont  to  boast  two  suns,  §  whose  several  beams 
Cast  light  on  either  way,  the  world's  and  God's. 
Once  since  hath  quench'd  the  other  ;  and  sword 
Is  grafted  on  the  crook  ;  and  so  conjoin'd. 
Each  must  perforce  decline  to  worse,  unawed 
By  fear  of  other." 

But  can  the  temporal  power  be  given  up,  and  the  spiritual 
power  be  left  intact  ?  The  affirmative  is  declared  by  some 
Catholic  writers  and  statesmen.  It  is  proposed  that  the 
Pope  should  surrender  his  temporal  authority,  but  continue 
at  Home  the  exercise  of  his  spiritual  functions,  receiving  an 
abundant  revenue,  together  with  an  ample  income  for  each 
of  the  cardinals.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Pope  and  his 
party  stoutly  contend  that  the  temporal  sovereignty  is  essen- 
tial to  the  full  exertion  of  his  spiritual  functions,  and  there- 
fore cannot  be  given  up.     It  must  be  allowed  that  cogent 

*  latoria  del  Condi.  Trident,  lib.  !.,  p.  5. 
f  Purgatoi'io,  xvi.,  1.  100 — 115  (Gary's  translation). 
X  The  allusion  is  to  an  unclean  beast  in  the  Levitical  Law.     (See  Levit 
xi.  4.) 
§  The  emperor  and  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 


92  THE   TEMPORAL   KINGDOM   OF   THE   POPES. 

arguments  may  be  brought  forward  on  this  side  of  the  ques- 
tion. In  the  first  place,  as  the  Pope  declares  in  his  recent 
"  Allocution,"  if  he  is  not  to  be  a  ruler,  he  must  be  a  sub- 
ject of  one  of  the  Catholic  powers ;  and,  if  a  subject,  he  is 
constantly  exposed  to  the  suspicion  of  being  warped  or  man- 
aged, in  his  spiritual  government,  by  the  power  to  w^liich  he 
is  thus,  in  a  civil  relation,  subordinate.  The  experience  of 
the  papacy  at  Avignon,  and  the  immense  loss  of  prestige 
and  influence  consequent  on  the  relation  of  the  Popes,  at 
that  time,  to  the  French  kings,  is  one  of  the  facts  which 
lend  a  strong  support  to  this  plea  put  forth  by  Pius  IX. 
On  the  contrary,  the  force  of  his  argument  seems  to  be  neu- 
tralized by  the  consideration  that,  in  the  present  state  of  the 
world,  the  Pope,  as  a  temporal  ruler,  is  incapable  of  sustain- 
ing himself,  and  is  obliged  to  lean  for  support  on  a  foreign 
power.  If  it  be  said  that  the  surrender  of  his  States  is  to 
compromise  his  independence,  the  reply  is  that  his  inde- 
pendence is  lost  already.  There  is  still  more  weight  in  an 
additional  argument,  which  is  also  touched  upon  by  the 
Pope  in  the  late  "Allocution,"  that  on  becoming  a  subject 
he  would  at  once  be  involved  in  a  conflict  of  duties,  or 
would  be  fettered  in  the  promulgation  of  doctrine  and  the 
administration  of  discipline.  The  great  question  of  mar- 
riage, which  is  now  a  prominent  subject  of  contention  be- 
tween the  Pope  and  the  Italian  king,  affords  a  fair  illustra- 
tion. In  the  kingdom  of  Italy,  and  wherever  the  French 
law  is  in  vogue,  marriage  by  the  civil  contract  alone  is  valid. 
To  this  law  and  practice  the  Pope  is,  of  course,  vehemently 
hostile.  Marriage  is  a  sacrament  of  the  church,  and  the 
sanction  of  the  priest  is  held  to  be  indispensable.  The  con- 
trol which  this  doctrine  gives  to  the  priesthood  is  one  of 
their  greatest  prerogatives,  and  no  wonder  that  it  is  prized 
and  defended  to  the  last,  l^ow,  suppose  the  Pope  to  become 
a  subject  of  Victor  Immanuel.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  his 
freedom  to  fulminate  anathemas  against  the  authors  of  the 
statute  which  abolishes  this  high  prerogative,  and  against 


THE    TEMPORAL    KINGDOM    OF    THE   POPES.  93 

sucli  as  venture  to  take  shelter  under  the  law  of  the  land, 
might  be  inconveniently  restricted  ;  and  that  conflict  be- 
tween the  secular  and  ecclesiastical  rulers  would  almost  in- 
evitably spring  up.  And  this  is  only  one  of  the  subjects  on 
which  variance  and  strife  might  easily  arise.  On  a  review 
of  the  whole  question,  we  are  inclined  to  agree  with  the 
Pope  and  his  party  in  the  opinion  that  the  loss  of  the  tem- 
poral power  carries  with  it  a  partial  loss  of  the  spiritual.  If 
the  spiritual  power  could  survive  the  surrender  of  the  tem- 
poral, in  undiminished  vigor,  the  former  might  be  enhanced, 
and  the  Catholic  Church  strengthened  by  the  purifying  in- 
fluence flowing  from  the  change.  The  Pope  would  stand 
forth  in  the  simple  character  of  Supreme  Bishop,  fi^ee  from 
the  entanglements  of  secular  rule.  But,  as  we  have  just  in- 
timated, it  is  doubtful  whether  his  freedom,  as  a  spiritual 
prince,  would  not  be  seriously  impaired  by  the  loss  of  his 
earthly  kingdom. 

Will  the  Pope  be  dethroned  ?  If  we  looked  solely  at  the 
past,  we  should  give  a  negative  answer  to  this  question.  We 
should  say  that  if  he  be  driven  from  his  kingdom,  he  will  re- 
gain it.  Many  times  have  the  Popes  been  expelled  from 
Pome.  They  have  seen  their  dominions  pass  into  other 
hands,  and  have  wandered  forth  as  fugitives  and  exiles. 
Often  have  they  witnessed  emergencies  which,  in  outward 
appearance,  were  more  threatening  than  the  peril  in  which 
they  are  just  now  involved.  The  bark  of  St.  Peter,  to  bor- 
row their  own  favorite  simile,  has  frequently  been  tossed  by 
the  tempest,  but  has  never  been  submerged.  It  has  floated 
in  safety  in  the  midst  of  the  rude  blast,  and  at  length  the  bil- 
lows have  been  composed  to  rest.  But  times  have  changed. 
There  is,  even  in  the  Poman  Catholic  part  of  Christendom, 
a  decline  of  faith  in  the  Papal  pretensions.  The  main  point 
is  that  the  papacy  no  longer  enjoys  in  Europe  the  popular 
sympathy  which  was  once  its  firm  support.  In  the  middle 
ages,  the  papacy  was  popular,  sometimes  even  demagogical. 
In  modem  times,  it  has  attached  itself  with  bHnd,  unyield- 


94:  THE   TEMPORAL    KINGDOM    OF   THE   POPES. 

ing  tenacity  to  the  despotic  principles  and  organs  of  the  re- 
actionary anti-republican  party  in  Europe.  It  vainly  strug- 
gles to  stem  the  tide  of  political  sentiment  which,  notwith- 
standing occasional  fluctuations,  has  been  steadily  rising  since 
the  commencement  of  the  present  century.  The  prospect, 
therefore,  is  that  the  Pope  will  be  forced  to  yield  up  what 
remains  to  him  of  his  Italian  kingdom.  If  he  could  perma- 
nently change  his  residence,  the  problem  would  admit  of 
another  solution.  He  might  become  the  master  of  some 
other  province,  or  establish  himself  on  some  island  of  the 
Mediterranean.  But  it  is  only  as  bishop  of  the  Roman 
Church  that  he  can  pretend  to  episcopal  supremacy.  For- 
saking that  church  by  his  own  voluntary  act,  could  he  lon- 
ger claim  the  prerogatives  of  Peter  ?  If  a  theory  could  be 
devised  for  escaping  from  this  difficulty,  still  the  abandon- 
ment of  Rome  for  a  long  period  would  bring  upon  him  a 
great  loss  of  consideration.*  The  peculiar  glory  that  lin- 
gers over  the  eternal  city,  and  over  the  papacy  as  identified 
with  it,  would  be  lost. 

The  separation  of  Italy  or  of  France,  or  of  both,  from  the 
Papal  See,  would  be  an  event  which  would  be  hailed  by 
Protestants  with  joy.  Such  an  event  would  open  to  the  se- 
ceding kingdoms  the  possibility  of  religious  reforms  which 
are  now  precluded.  The  policy  of  toleration  is  now  too  firm- 
ly established,  to  render  it  possible,  in  either  of  the  countries 
just  mentioned,  for  Protestantism  to  be  suppressed  by  the 
tyranny  of  an  establishment,  in  case  they  were  to  break  off 
their  connection  with  the  Roman  Church.     Unhappily,  in 

*  The  Catholic  theologians  hold  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  may  reside 
away  from  that  city,  if  he  chooses.  As  long  as  he  is  Bishop  of  Rome,  he 
is  Supreme  Pontiff.  SaysPerrone  : —  "  Fieri  potest,  ut  suramus  pontifex 
resideat  Viennge,  Mediolani,  Berolini,  aut  Petropoli,  nunquam  vero  potest 
fieri,  ut  simplex  episcopus  Viennensis  aut  Petropolitanua  sit  summus 
Pontifex ;  ubicunque  idcirco  resideat,  semper  erit  pontifex  maximus, 
ut  possit  dici  ac  vere  sit  in  primatu  Petri  successor."  Perrone,  t.  11., 
§  604.  (Quoted  in  Hase,  Handbuch  der  Protestantischen  Polemik,  etc.,  p. 
242,  n.) 


THE    TEMPORAL    KINGDOM    OF    THE    POPES.  95 

France,  tlie  ultramontane  party  is  now  in  the  ascendant. 
The  old  principles  of  Galilean  freedom,  for  which  Bossuet, 
and  a  body  of  great  men  before  and  after  him,  have  con- 
tended, have  lost  ground  and  find  but  few  advocates.  In 
Italy,  the  prospect  is  more  hopeful.  It  is  not  impossible 
that  the  prolonged  and  irritating  conflict  there  between  Pope 
and  king  will  ultimately  lead  to  an  open  renunciation  of  the 
ecclesiastical,  as  well  as  civil,  pretensions  of  the  Pope.  Since 
the  modern  nations  of  Europe  emerged  into  a  distinct  exis- 
tence, the  feeling  of  national  rights  and  of  national  inde- 
pendence, as  opposed  to  foreign  ecclesiastical  control,  has 
been  steadily  growing.  A  regard  for  the  interest  of  the  na- 
tion has  outweighed  the  influence  of  religious  affinities. 
Since  Philip  the  Fair  summoned  together  the  estates  of  his 
realm  to  aid  him  in  his  opposition  to  the  tyrannical  meas- 
ures of  Boniface  YIII.,  the  nation  has  generally  been  the 
uppermost  thought,  as  compared  with  the  church,  in  the 
policy  of  European  rulers.  The  hostility  of  France  to  the 
Austrian  house  of  Hapsburg  brought  the  former  to  the  as- 
sistance of  the  Protestant  cause  in  the  thirty  years'  war. 
Now  we  find  Prussia  and  Italy  in  alliance  against  the  same 
Catholic  empire.  The  papacy  is  not  so  strong  that  it  can 
afford  to  set  itself  against  the  national  feeling  and  real  wel- 
fare of  any  Catholic  people. 

At  the  same  time  we  have  little  confidence  in  the  perma- 
nence of  any  triumph  that  is  achieved  over  the  Papal  sys- 
tem, unless  that  triumph  results  from  the  power  of  enlight- 
ened religious  convictions.  In  the  last  century,  in  Europe, 
the  papacy — we  speak  of  it  as  a  system  of  spiritual  rule — 
was  at  a  low  ebb.  It  seemed  as  if  there  were  none  so  poor 
as  to  do  it  reverence.  The  Emperor  Joseph  11.  of  Austria 
introduced  into  his  dominions  reforms  that  feU  little  short 
of  an  utter  renunciation  of  Papal  control.  Everywhere  the 
bonds  of  hierarchical  rule  were  loosened.  But  the  motive 
underlying  these  changes  was,  to  a  large  extent,  religious  in- 
differentism.    When  religion  revived,  religious  feeling  flowed 


96  THE    TEMPORAL    KINGDOM    OF    THE    POPES.' 

in  the  old  channel.  In  France,  the  Catholic  Church  is 
stronger  than  it  was  fifty  years  ago.  It  is  on  a  believing, 
and  not  on  a  free-thinking,  Protestantism  that  we  must  de- 
pend for  a  success  that  is  to  be  enduring.  It  is  requisite  that 
deep  and  enlightened  convictions  of  Christian  truth,  and  a 
true  love  of  the  Gospel  as  understood  by  Protestants,  should 
spread  among  the  people  of  Catholic  countries.  The  church 
is  founded  not  on  Peter  as  an  individual,  but  on  Peter  as  a 
warm  and  sincere  confessor  of  the  faith  that  Jesus  is  the 
Son  of  God  and  Saviour  of  the  world.  With  the  progress 
of  this  faith,  unencumbered  by  th^  traditions  of  men,  the 
decline  and  fall  of  the  Papal  system  are  linked.  Political 
changes  may  be  valuable  auxiliaries,  but  it  is  easy  to  overes- 
timate their  importance. 

Most  Protestant  Christians  sympathize  with  the  progress 
of  the  Italian  kingdom,  and  hope  to  see  the  Pope  lose  his 
temporal  power.  This  is  not  true  of  all,  however ;  and 
among  the  dissenters  from  the  popular  view  is  the  illustrious 
scholar  and  statesman,  Guizot.  The  publication,  during  the 
present  year,  of  the  fourth  edition  of  his  remarks  on  The 
Christian  Church  and  Christia7i  Society  in  1861,  indicates 
that  his  opinions  on  this  question  since  that  time  have  not 
changed.  At  the  foundation  of  his  interesting  discussion  is 
the  proposition  that  every  blow  struck  at  one  of  the  great 
churches  is  a  blow  struck  at  all  and  at  Christianity  itself. 
The  Roman  Catholic  and  the  Protestant  have  adversaries  in 
common,  who  are  far  more  distant  from  both  than  the  Cath- 
olic and  Protestant  are  from  one  another.  The  Catholic  and 
Protestant  profess  the  same  Christian  faith,  important  as 
the  points  of  disagreement  are  between  them.  The  adver- 
saries attack  this  faith,  and  their  attacks  at  the  present  day 
are  mischievous  and  formidable.  It  is,  therefore,  suicidal,  as 
well  as  wrong,  for  Protestants  to  join  hands  with  indifferent- 
ism  and  irreligion,  for  the  sake  of  weakening  their  ancient 
theological  antagonist.  Guizot  proceeds  to  argue  that  the 
temporal  kingdom  of  the  Pope  cannot  be  wrested  from  him 


THE   TEMPORAL   KINGDOM   OF   THE   POPES.  97 

without  a  violation  of  international  law  and  public  morality. 
He  sees  in  the  authority  which  it  has  become  fashionable  in 
France  to  concede  to  "  universal  sufPrage  "  the  rising  of  a  new 
despotism  which  is  held  to  be  stronger  than  the  obligations 
of  treaties  and  the  settled  principles  of  international  right. 
Moreover,  the  attack  on  the  Pope's  temporal  kingdom  he 
considers  an  infringement  of  religious  liberty.  The  tem- 
poral power  is  a  condition  of  the  exercise  of  the  spiritual. 
It  is  the  guaranty  of  the  independence  of  the  Papal  office. 
The  great  body  of  Catholics  so  regard  it.  The  temporal 
power  grew  up  in  connection  with  the  spiritual,  as  a  part 
and  a  fruit  of  the  latter.  Besides,  he  thinks  that  the  policy 
of  the  Italian  kingdom  is  principally  dictated  by  political 
ambition.  If  the  Pope  be  driven  from  Rome,  Guizot  thinks 
that  this  event  will  not  give  more  than  a  momentary  success 
to  the  Italian  movement.  The  Roman  Catholic  population, 
the  world  over,  will  be  roused  to  a  sense  of  the  injury  done 
to  their  chief  and  thus  indirectly  to  themselves.  The  con- 
sequence will  be  that  widespread  and  increasing  agitation 
will  lead  to  positive  measures  for  the  restoration  of  the 
Pope  to  his  rightful  throne. 

Guizot  does  not  confine  himself  to  an  expression  of  his 
reasons  for  not  approving  the  Sardinian  movement.  He  in- 
dicates w^hat  he  believes  to  be  the  real  need  of  Italy,  and  the 
way  in  which  it  should  be  met.  Italy  needs  independence 
and  liberty — independence  of  foreign  control  and  liberty 
within.  Both  of  these  ends  he  holds  it  possible  to  secure 
by  peaceful  means,  apart  from  all  revolutionary  measures. 
The  abridgment  of  liberty  in  the  Italian  States  he  attributes, 
to  a  considerable  extent,  to  the  revolutionary  ferment.  But 
Italian  unity,  in  the  sense  in  which  the  phrase  is  taken  gen- 
erally, he  believes  to  be  at  once  unnecessary  and  impractica- 
ble. His  plan  would  be  to  establish  a  confederation,  em- 
bracing all  the  States  of  the  Peninsula  as  they  existed  prior 
to  the  revolutions  which  have  so  enlarged  the  borders  of  the 
Sardinian  kingdom.  In  a  confederacy  of  this  kind,  he  con- 
5 


98  THE   TEMPORAL   KINGDOM   OF   THE   POPES. 

ceives  that  all  tlie  unity  that  is  desirable  or  attainable  could 
be  realized.  To  give  strength  to  the  various  parts  com- 
posing such  a  body,  he  would  wish  that  they  should  be  near- 
ly equal  to  one  another,  no  one  State  being  much  beyond 
any  of  the  rest  in  power  and  resources.  It  is  evident  that 
Guizot  has  little  faith  in  political  changes  which  are  due  to 
revolutionary  agencies.  He  uses  strong  language  when  con- 
demning the  action  of  the  Italian  Government  in  confiscat- 
ing ecclesiastical  property,  and  in  reference  generally  to 
their  treatment  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Yet  he  does  not 
omit  to  express  satisfaction  that  he  is  a  Protestant,  and  re- 
gret that  the  authorities  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  do 
not  see  the  advantage,  as  well  as  duty,  ot  coming  out  in  fa- 
vor of  full  religious  toleration. 

We  must  confess  ourselves  not  convinced  by  this  reason- 
ing. The  fact  is  obvious  that  the  Papal  civil  administration 
is  not  only  distasteful  to  the  subjects  of  it,  but  is  extremely 
bad — inherently  bad.  It  is  a  fact  equally  obvious  that  the 
condition  of  Italy,  partly  in  consequence  of  the  Papal  king- 
dom, has  been  deplorable.  The  discontent  of  the  people  is 
owing  to  misgovernment.  So  we  cannot  but  think  that  their 
desire  to  become  a  nation  is  legitimate  and  laudable.  Nor 
does  Guizot's  scheme  of  a  confederation,  even  were  it  within 
reach,  seem  to  promise  good.  If  it  is  to  be  united  by  no  bond 
«tronger  than  the  bands  which  held  the  Greek  states  togeth- 
er, or  which  lately  connected  the  members  of  the  Germanic 
body,  it  would  prove  to  be  a  rope  of  sand.  If,  on  the  con- 
trary, it  were  a  bond  like  that  of  the  American  Union,  Italy 
w^ould  be,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  single  nation,  and  that 
member  of  the  nation  over  which  the  Pope  presides  would 
inevitably  prove  to  be  refractory  and  unmanageable.  The 
Pope,  if  he  were  to  belong  to  such  a  confederacy,  would  be 
bound  to  abide  by  its  policy  in  respect  to  foreign  nations,  not 
to  speak  of  domestic  affairs,  and  would  be  as  far  from  a  situ- 
ation of  independence  as  it  is  claimed  he  would  be  were  he 
a  subject  of  the  Italian  king. 


THE   TEMPORAL   KINGDOM   OF   THE   POPES.  99 

Our  conclusion  is  that  the  "logic  of  events"  is  hurrying 
the  Pope  to  the  coerced  surrender  of  his  temporal  power, 
and  that  a  portion  of  his  spiritual  power  must  eventually  go 
with  it.  Whether  this  great  change  will  take  place  speedily, 
and  in  consequence  of  the  progress  of  the  new  Italian  king- 
dom, it  is  impossible  to  say.  The  effect  of  an  exile  of  the 
Pope  from  Home,  growing  out  of  a  refusal  on  his  part  to 
acquiesce  in  the  absorption  of  his  territory  in  the  new  king- 
dom, may  be  such  as  Guizot  describes.  Disturbances  may 
arise  which  will  lead,  as  when  the  late  Roman  Republic  was 
overthrown,  to  the  regaining  of  his  throne.  Even  when 
Victor  Immanuel  establishes  himself  at  Rome,  it  will  be  too 
early  to  say  that  the  Pope's  temporal  power  is  gone  forever. 
So  unsettled  is  the  political  condition  of  all  Europe,  that  a 
confident  judgment  on  this  point  would  be  premature. 

[At  the  beginning  of  the  Franco- German  war,  IN^apoleon 
m.  withdrew  the  French  troops  from  Italy.  Shortly  after, 
on  the  20th  of  September,  1870,  Victor  Emanuel  took  pos- 
session of  Rome.  The  relations  of  the  Pope  to  the  Italian 
government  were  defined  in  the  law  of  the  Papal  guaran- 
tees, which  was  enacted  on  the  13th  of  May,  1871.  By  this 
law  it  was  provided  that  the  person  of  the  Pope  should  be 
sacred  and  inviolable  ;  that  attacks  upon  his  person  should 
be  punished  in  the  same  manner  as  like  offences  against  the 
king ;  that  he  should  have  the  honors  of  a  sovereign,  and 
all  the  distinctions  which  Catholic  monarchs  had  heretofore 
accorded  to  him  ;  that  3,225,000  lire  should  be  annually 
granted  him;  that  the  Vatican  and  Lateran  palaces,  and 
the  Castel  Gandolfo,  with  their  appurtenances,  should  be 
given  up  to  him  to  use,  and  that  they  should  be  inalienable, 
and  with  all  their  contents — libraries,  museums,  and  the 
like — should  be  exempt  from  taxation ;  likewise  that  no  gov- 
ernment officials  should  enter  these  places,  on  official  busi- 
ness, without  the  Pope's  permission  ;  that  this  rule  should 
also  hold  good  of  places  where  conclaves  and  councils  are 


100  THE   TEMPORAL   KINGDOM   OF   THE   POPES. 

assembled ;  that  the  Pope's  correspondence  should  be  free, 
and  that  he  should  have  his  own  postal  department  and  tele- 
graph ;  that  all  ecclesiastical  institutions  in  Kome,  and  in  the 
suburban  dioceses  should  be  under  his  exclusive  authority ; 
but  that  no  aid  should  be  rendered  by  the  secular  power  in 
the  execution  of  ecclesiastical  sentences.  If  these  should  be  at 
variance  with  the  law  of  the  state,  they  would  be  null  and  void. 
These  liberal  concessions  went  as  far  as  it  was  practicable 
to  go  without  constituting  the  papacy  an  imperium  in  im- 
jperio.  Pius  IX.,  in  repeated  protests,  repudiated  this  law, 
and  he  refused  to  receive  the  grant  of  money  which  it  of- 
fered him,  or  to  yield  to  the  enactment  anything  but  a  pas- 
sive submission.  Thus,  in  an  encyclical  to  all  patriarchs, 
archbishops,  etc.,  on  the  15th  of  May,  1871,  he  declared  that 
he  could  not  surrender  his  rights,  "  which  are  the  rights  of 
God  and  of  the  Apostolic  See,"  with  which  the  Popes  had 
been  invested,  in  the  providence  of  God,  for  eleven  hun- 
dred years.  He  asserted  the  impossibility  that  a  Pope  of 
Rome  could  be  independent  in  his  office,  as  long  as  he  is 
subject  to  a  temporal  sovereign  who  might  be  an  infidel  or  a 
heretic,  or  might  be  at  war  with  other  princes.  The  act  of 
guarantees  of  1870  had  left  the  ecclesiastical  establishments 
in  Rome  and  its  dioceses  under  the  exclusive  control  of  the 
Pope.  By  a  law  passed  on  the  19th  of  July,  1873,  the  laws 
in  virtue  of  which  such  institutions  in  all  the  other  parts  of 
the  Italian  kingdom  had  been  obliged  to  give  up  their  im- 
movable property  to  the  government,  and  to  submit  to  the 
regulations  imposed  by  the  civil  authority,  were  made  ap- 
plicable to  the  province  of  Rome.  Among  the  qualifications, 
however,  which  were  attached  to  the  new  enactment  was 
the  important  provision  appropriating  to  the  Pope  400,000 
francs  annually  for  the  support  of  the  generals  of  the  re- 
ligious orders."^] 

*  The  various  documents  referred  to  above  may  be  found  in  Von 
Kremer-Auenrode  u,  Hirsch,  Bos  Staatsarchiv,  I.  Supplementband  zu  b. 
xxiii.,  xxiv.,  Leipzig,  1877. 


COUNCILS  OF  CONSTANCE  AND  THE  VATICAN.  101 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE  AND  THE  COUN- 
CIL OF  THE  VATICAN.* 

The  Coimcil  of  Constance,  which  was  in  session  during 
the  interval  between  the  years  1414  and  1418,  was  the  most 
brilliant  and  imposing  of  the  ecclesiastical  assemblies  of  the 
middle  ages.  If  the  number  of  bishops  present  was  not  so 
large  as  at  some  of  the  other  gi-eat  synods  of  the  church, 
this  difference  was  more  than  made  up  by  the  multitude  of 
inferior  clergy,  of  doctors  and  of  jurists,  and  by  the  unex- 
ampled array  of  sovereigns  and  nobles.  Pope  and  emperor 
were  both  present,  each  with  a  numerous  and  dazzling  reti- 
nue of  officers  and  attendants.  It  has  been  pronoimced  the 
first  example  of  a  congress  of  princes  in  modern  times,  since 
there  was  hardly  a  kingdom  or  principality  of  the  catho- 
lic world,  however  small  or  remote,  that  was  not  represented 
by  princes  or  other  deputies.  A  throng  of  not  less  than  fifty 
thousand  people,  drawn  by  official  obligation,  curiosity,  the 
love  of  gain  or  of  pleasure,  flowed  into  the  city  of  Constance, 
to  witness  the  doings  of  the  council.  It  has  been  truly  said 
that  a  detailed  description  of  the  scenes  that  took  place  with- 
in and  without  the  assembly,  would  afford  a  complete  as 
well  as  vivid  picture  of  the  life  and  manners  of  the  time. 
The  occasion  that  called  the  council  together  was  of  the 

*  An  article  from  The  New  Englander  for  April,  1870,  in  review  of  Con- 
ciliengescJiichte.  Nach  den  Quellen  bearbeitet  von  Dr.  Carl  Joseph 
Hefele,  o.  6  Professor  an  der  Universitat  Tubingen.  Siebenter  Band.  I. 
Abtb.  Geschichte  des  ConcUs  von  Constam.  Freiburg  im  Breisgau  1869  : 
The  Centenary  of  St.  Peter  and  the  General  Council :  A  Pastoral  Letter 
to  the  Clergy,  &c.  By  Henry  Edward,  Archbishop  of  Westminster. 
London  :  Longmans,  Green  &  Co. ,  1867. 


102  THE    COUNCIL   OF   CONSTANCE   AND 

gravest  character.  The  abuses  in  the  administration  of  the 
church  had  grown  to  be  unbearable.  In  Bohemia  there 
was  a  formidable  religious  movement  that  threatened  to 
result'  in  the  establishment  of  a  new  and  powerful  sect. 
Above  all,  the  long  schism  which  the  Council  of  Pisa  had 
unsuccessfully  tried  to  terminate,  demanded  an  instant  and 
effectual  remedy,  if  Christendom  and  the  Catholic  Church 
were  to  be  saved  from  permanent  division.  It  is  to  the 
proceedings  of  this  synod,  that  the  new  instalment  of  He- 
fele's  copious  work  on  the  History  of  Councils  is  devoted. 

Hefele  is  one  of  the  most  learned  and  justly  esteemed  of 
the  Catholic  theologians  north  of  the  Alps.  His  work  is 
one  to  which  a  Protestant,  to  be  sure,  must  often  take  ex- 
ception; yet,  generally  speaking,  it  is  characterized  by  a 
spirit  of  fairness,  and  it  is  not  probable  that  it  contains  any 
intentional  perversion  of  facts  or  sophistry  in  argument. 
Hefele  is  frequently  called  a  liberal  Catholic ;  and  so  he  is, 
in  comparison  with  the  curialists  or  extreme  ultramontanist 
party.  On  the  particular  question  whether  the  Pope  is,  by 
himself  and  independently  of  the  concurrence  of  a  council, 
infallible  in  matters  of  faith  and  morals,  we  do  not  find 
that,  in  the  work  before  us,  he  distinctly  avows  his  opinion. 
But  he  is  far  from  being  a  Gallican,  in  the  sense  of  the  old 
Paris  theologians,  who  exerted  a  commanding  influence  in 
the  reforming  councils  of  Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basle,  or 
in  the  sense  of  Bossuet,  who  followed  in  their  track.  In 
fact,  he  describes  his  own  position  as  being  a  middle  one, 
between  the  Galileans  on  the  one  hand  and  the  curialists 
on  the  other.  The  Pope  is  neither  ohove  nor  under  the 
council,  but  is  the  head  of  the  church ;  his  relation  being 
analogous  to  that  of  the  head  to  the  members  of  the  human 
body.  A  council  without  the  Pope  is  incomplete.  It  is  not 
an  oecumenical  council.  His  assent  to  the  dogmatic  decrees 
of  such  an  assembly  is  requisite,  to  give  them  infallible  au- 
thority. Yet  Hefele  holds,  as  indeed  does  Bellarmine,  that 
a  council  might  depose  a  Pope  for  heresy,  inasmuch  as 


THE    COUNCIL   OF   THE   VATICAN.  103 

a  heretic  is  ipso  facto  disqualified  from  holding  an  ecclesias- 
tical office,  high  or  low.'^  But  in  such  a  proceeding  the 
council  does  not  act  as  an  oecumenical  assembly.  Being  cut 
off  from  the  Pope,  it  cannot  act  in  this  capacity.  We  have 
the  singular  doctrine,  then,  that  an  assembly  of  bishops, 
which  is  incompetent,  without  the  Pope's  assent,  to  issue  in- 
fallible definitions  of  doctrine,  is  still  competent  to  put  the 
Pope  on  trial  for  heresy,  convict  him,  and  degrade  him 
from  his  office.  Hefele  shows  his  conservatism,  also,  in 
maintaining  that  a  Pope  cannot  be  deposed  by  a  council  for 
personal  misconduct.  He  may  be  a  very  bad  man,  but  he 
cannot  for  this  reason  be  deprived  of  his  office.  John 
XXIII.,  Hefele  expressly  says,  could  not  have  been  lawfully 
deposed  for  his  crimes.  It  was  only  heresy  on  his  part  that 
could  authorize  such  a  proceeding.  The  doubtful  validity 
of  his  election  is  brought  in,  as  another  sufficient  cause  for 
removing  him  from  his  station.  How  far  this  theory  is 
from  that  of  the  Constance  theologians  and  of  hosts  of  able 
and  good  Catholics  in  past  ages,  we  need  not  stop  to  point 
out. 

In  his  History,  Hefele  is  evidently  biased  by  the  theory 
as  to  the  relation  of  the  Pope  to  the  council,  to  which  we 
have  just  adverted.  He  supports,  by  feeble  argimients,  the 
often  refuted  assertion  that  the  Bishops  of  Eome  convoked 
and  presided  over  the  early  oecumenical  councils,  including 
that  of  Nicea.  The  proposition  that  the  Roman  bishop 
convoked  the  Council  of  l^icea,  rests  on  no  proof  that  has 
any  weight,  and  is  contrary  to  all  the  evidence  and  probabili- 
ties in  the  case.  It  was  Constantine  who  endeavored  to 
quell  the  disturbance  raised  by  Arius  at  Alexandria.  It 
w^as  through  his  fi*iend  Hosius,  the  Spanish  bishop  whom 
he  held  in  so  high  esteem,  that  he  sent  his  letter  which  was 
designed  to  pacify  the  contending  parties.     ITot  a  syllable  do 


*  Bellarraine,  as  will  be  explained  hereafter,  does  not  admit,  for  him- 
self, that  a  Pope  will  ever  be  left  to  fall  from  the  faith. 


104  THE   COmrCIL   OF   CONSTANCE  AND 

we  hear  from  the  contemporary  historians  and  witnesses,  of 
any  connection  of  the  Roman  bishop  with  these  preliminary 
events.  Constantino,  in  all  his  letters  and  missives  that  re- 
late to  the  council,  says  nothing  about  the  Pope.  The  as- 
sertion that  Hosius  acted  for  the  Pope  and  presided  in  his 
name,  is  not  only  a  pure  conjecture,  but  is  virtually  contra- 
dicted by  Eusebius,  who  speaks  of  the  Roman  presbyters  as 
acting  for  the  Roman  prelate,  and  although  Hosius  is  named 
in  the  same  sentence,  no  such  representative  cha;*acter  is  as- 
cribed to  him.  That  Hosius  signs  the  decrees  of  the  synod 
first,  is  owing  to  the  circumstance  that  he  was  a  "world- 
renowned  "  man,  as  Eusebius  says  of  him ;  to  his  personal 
relations  to  the  emperor  ;  and  to  the  probable  fact  that  he 
was  one  of  the  presidents,  not  as  standing  in  the  Pope's 
place,  but  through  his  own  merits.  It  was  he  and  Eusebius 
of  Csesarea,  as  Stanley  justly  thinks,  who  sat,  one  on  each 
side  of  the  emperor,  when  that  august  personage  took  his 
place  in  the  midst  of  the  council.  The  two  Roman  presby- 
ters signed  after  Hosius — we  assume  that  the  authorities 
which  report  the  signatures  in  this  order  are  correct — out 
of  respect  to  the  Roman  bishop,  to  whom  a  primacy  of 
dignity  would  probably  have  been  conceded,  had  he  been 
present ;  although,  even  in  this  case,  it  is  not  certain  that 
the  name  of  Hosius  would  not  have  been  first  inscribed. 
Now  that  the  pseudo-Isidorian  misconceptions  and  misrep- 
resentations respecting  the  powers  conceded  to  the  Roman 
bishops  in  the  first  centuries,  have  been  so  long  exploded, 
is  it  too  much  to  hope  that  Roman  Catholic  writers  will 
cease  to  strain  historical  evidence  for  the  sake  of  establishing 
an  indefensible  position  ?  The  sole  authority  which  Hefele 
cites  for  the  pretended  presidency  of  the  Roman  prelate  at 
Kicea,  is  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus,  who  wrote  towards  the  end 
of  the  fifth  century — an  utterly  worthless  witness,  a  mau- 
vais  comjpil-ateur^  as  Dupin  calls  him.  Gelasius  interpolates, 
in  a  quotation  from  Eusebius,  the  statement  that  the  Pope 
presided  by  representatives.    But  his  whole  narrative  of  the. 


THE   COUNCIL   OF   THE  VATICAN.  105 

council  swarms  with  errors.  He  even  gives  an  account  of 
discussions  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  although,  as 
is  well  known,  the  subject  was  not  touched  at  the  council. 
One  may  see  how  desperate  the  case  is,  when  a  scholar,  like 
Hefele,  finding  nothing  in  Eusebius  or  Socrates  or  Athana- 
sius,  to  afford  any  aid  to  his  position,  falls  back  on  Gela- 
sius! 

The  two  topics  of  most  interest  which  are  brought  for- 
ward in  Hefele's  recent  volume  on  the  proceedings  at  Con- 
stance, are  the  decrees  of  the  Ith  and  5th  Sessions,  affirming 
the  subordination  of  Pope  to  council,  and  the  trial  and  exe- 
cution of  Huss.  Hefele  dissents,  of  course,  from  the  view 
of  the  extreme  curialists,  who  deny  the  oecumenicity  of  the 
Constance  council  altogether.  It  requires,  indeed,  some 
hardihood  even  in  them  to  take  such  ground,  in  the  face  of 
the  distinct  declaration  of  Martin  Y.,  in  the  bull  against  the 
Hussites.  But  Hefele  allows  an  oecumenical  character 
only  to  those  acts  of  the  council  which  were  done  after  the 
election  of  the  Pope  and  with  his  approval  (the  41st  to  45th 
Sessions,  inclusive),  together  with  such  other  previous  acts  and 
decrees  as  were  ratified  by  him.  All  the  ingenuity  of  the 
Papal  theologians  has  been  exerted  in  the  effort  to  show 
that  the  famous  doctrines  of  the  4th  and  5th  Sessions  never 
had  Papal  sanction.  The  decrees  which  had  been  agreed 
upon  in  the  meetings  of  the  nations,  were  to  be  read  in  the 
general  session  (the  4th)  by  Zabarella,  Cardinal  of  Florence, 
the  anti-Gallican  spokesman.  But  it  was  found  that  in  his 
hands  they  had  undergone  an  alteration.  One  of  the 
changes  was  that  in  the  1st  Article  which  declared  the  obli- 
gation of  all,  the  Pope  included,  to  obey  the  council,  the 
words,  "  Reformation  in  head  and  members  " — one  of  the 
points  in  regard  to  which  the  obligation  to  submit  to  the 
council  was  affirmed — ^were  left  out.  This,  Hefele  states,  was 
by  an  arrangement  between  Sigismund  and  the  cardinals. 
Then  the  intelligence  came  that  the  Pope  had  fled  again, 
5* 


106  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE  AND 

leaving  Scliaffhausen.  The  council  now  insisted  upon  the 
passage  of  the  Articles  as  originally  conceived,  and  as  ap- 
proved by  the  nations,  and  this  took  place  at  the  5th  General 
Session,  at  which  Zabarella  and  seven  other  cardinals  were 
present.  They  made  no  protest,  and  the  Articles  were 
passed  in  due  form.  We  cannot  admit,  therefore,  the  plea 
of  Ilefele,  that  on  account  of  their  secret  objections  or  pri- 
vate declarations,  supposing  these  to  have  been  in  opposition 
to  the  decrees,  they  were  rendered  invalid.  In  two  dis- 
courses of  Gerson,  they  were  quoted  before  the  council  as 
authoritative  acts,  and  no  voice  was  lifted  up  to  dispute  the 
statement.  They  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  decrees  of  the 
council,  not  less  than  the  declarations  of  the  preceding  ses- 
sion. But  we  do  not  see  that  Ilefele  materially  helps  his 
case,  were  he  to  succeed  in  showing  that  the  proceedings  of 
the  5th  Session  were  without  the  assent  of  the  cardinals. 
For  the  1st  Article,  as  read  by  Zabarella  and  passed  in  the 
4th  Session,  is  all  that  a  Galilean  can  ask.  It  read  thus : 
"  The  Synod  of  Constance,  regularly  assembled  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,  forming  a  universal  council  and  representing  the 
militant  church,  has  its  authority  immediately  from  God, 
and  every  one,  the  Pope  included,  is  bound  to  obey  it  in 
wliat  pertains  to  the  faith  and  to  the  extirpation  of 
schism."  *  This  is  enough.  The  superiority  of  the  coun- 
cil to  the  Pope  is  unambiguously  declared.  And  as  to  the 
omitted  clause — "the  reformation  of  the  church  in  head 
and  members  " — the  council  practically  vindicated  its  right 

*  "  Et  prirao  declarat,  quod  ipsa  in  Spiritu  Sancto,  legitime  congregata, 
generale  Concilium  faciens,  et  Ecclesiam  Catholicam  miiitantem  reprae- 
sentans,  potestatem  a  Christo  immediate  habet,  cui  quilibet,  cujuscun- 
que  status,  vel  dignitatis,  etiamsi  papalis,  existat,  obedire  tenetur  in  his, 
qua  pertinent  ad  fidem  et  exstirpationem  dicti  schismatis,  ac  generalem  re- 
foi^mationem  ecclesim  Dei  in  capite  et  in  memhris,^''  etc.  The  council  proceeds 
to  assert  that  disobedience  to  its  behests  and  ordinances,  come  from 
whatever  quarter  it  may,  even  from  a  Pope,  will  subject  the  offender  to 
condign  penance,  and  to  punishment.  Van  d.  Hardt,  iv.  p.  72.  Gieseler, 
III.,v.  1,  §131,  n.  8. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  THE  VATICAN.  107 

on  this  point  by  deposing  John  XXIII.,  and  by  other  meas- 
ures equally  significant.  But  how  about  the  approval  of 
the  Popes  ?  In  the  first  place,  John  XXIII.,  before  his  de- 
position, declared,  over  and  over  again,  that  the  council  was 
"holy  and  could  not  err."  Hefele  himself  quotes  these 
declarations.  To  be  sure,  Balthasar  Cossa  was  one  of  the 
most  flagitious  of  men,  although  Hefele  would  mitigate 
somewhat  the  verdict  of  execration  that  was  pronounced 
upon  him  by  his  contemporaries.  But  he  was  Pope,  never- 
theless, up  to  the  time  of  his  deposition.  In  the  second 
place,  Martin  Y.  sanctioned  the  proceedings  of  the  council, 
in  terms  that  cover  the  4th  and  5th  Sessions.  ]^o  matter 
what  reluctance  he  may  have  felt  in  doing  this.  No  matter 
what  counter  expressions  he  may  have  uttered.  In  the 
matter  of  Falkenberg,  who  had  so  grievously  incensed  the 
Poles  by  his  book,  and  whom  the  French,  on  account  of  the 
affinity  of  his  doctrines  with  those  of  Jean  Petit,  wished 
also  to  condemn,  the  Pope  declared  that  he  maintained  the 
decrees  of  the  council  as  to  everything  which  had  been 
adopted  in  materiis  fidei  et  conciliariter.  The  verdict 
against  Falkenberg  had  been  passed  in  the  nations,  but  not 
in  the  general  session.  This  is  the  sense  of  the  term  concili- 
ariter. It  is  not  opposed  to  tumultuariter^  as  Hefele  seemed 
to  think,  in  his  first  volume  ;  but  to  nationaliter.  ISTow  the 
decrees  of  the  4th  and  5th  Sessions  were  adopted  conciliari- 
ter. Hefele  objects,  again,  that  they  are  not  defide.  That 
is,  they  are  not  of  a  dogmatic  character.  They  were  ob- 
viously so  meant ;  and  this  Hefele  himself  concedes.*  If 
the  supremacy  of  Pope  over  council  can  be  made  into  a 
dogma,  w^hy  not  the  reverse  proposition  ?  If  the  infallibility 
of  the  Pope  can  be  turned  into  an  article  of  the  creed,  why 
not  the  infallibility  of  the  council  ?  But  look  at  Martin's 
bull  against  the  Hussites.  In  this  bull,  it  was  provided  that 
every  person  suspected  of  holding  the  condemned  heresies 

♦  P.  104. 


108  THE   COUNCIL   OF   CONSTANCE   AND 

of  "Wickliffe  and  Huss,  should  be  required  by  bishop  or  in- 
quisitor to  say,  among  other  things,  whether  he  believes 
that  "  what  the  Holy  Council  of  Constance,  representing  the 
universal  church,  has  sanctioned  and  sanctions  m  fdvorem 
fidei  et  salutem  animarum  is  binding  on  all  Christian  be- 
lievers, and  also  that  what  the  synod  has  condemned  as 
contrary  to  the  faith,  must  be  held  by  all  to  deserve  reproba- 
tion." Hefele  can  do  nothing  with  this  passage  except  to 
construe  the  terms,  in  fcmorem  fidei  et  salutem  animajrum^ 
as  restrictive !  As  if  Martin,  in  a  bull  for  the  suppression 
of  heresy,  which  aimed  to  accomplish  its  end  by  bringing 
the  authority  of  the  council  to  bear  heavily  upon  offenders, 
would  couple  with  the  assertion  of  the  oecumenical  character 
of  the  synod,  a  partial  denial  of  the  same !  As  if  he  would 
suggest  to  persons  heretically  inclined,  that  decrees  not 
judged  to  be  in famorem fidei  and  for  the  health  of  souls, 
need  not  be  respected !  But  Hefele  is  compelled  to  resort 
to  the  hypothesis  that  Martin  Y.  pui-posely  used  ambiguous 
language,  such  as  might  be  understood  by  each  party  as 
favoring  its  cause  against  the  other.  That  is,  he  intended 
that  the  supporters  of  the  council  should  understand  him  to 
approve  of  their  doctrine,  at  the  same  time  that  he  left  a 
loop-hole  out  of  which  he  could  escape !  We  think  more 
charitably,  in  this  instance,  of  Martin  Y.,  and  we  interpret 
him  as  giving  a  full  and  unqualified  assent  to  the  decrees 
and  declarations,  passed  in  general  session,  of  the  Council  of 
Constance.  In  the  third  place,  when  the  Council  of  Basle 
had  reafiirmed  the  Constance  decrees  on  the  point  in  ques- 
tion, Eugene  lY.  gave  them  his  express  and  unqualified 
sanction.  The  pretence  of  the  curialists,  that  this  was  done 
imder  stress,  will  not  answer.  There  was  the  force  of  pub- 
lic opinion  and  the  pressure  of  circumstances,  so  that  he  did 
what  he  would  have  preferred  not  to  do  ;  but  he  acted  freely, 
without  coercion.  Moreover,  his  legates  solemnly  swore  to 
observe  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Basle,  before  they 
were  permitted  to  preside.    We  might  bring  other  evidence 


THE    COUNCIL    OF    THE   VATICAN.  109 

to  prove  that  Popes  have  sanctioned  the  Constance  doc- 
trine, upon  the  relative  authority  of  councils.  But  the 
great  French  historians  and  theologians  have  established 
the  fact  long  ago.  It  is  only  the  fresh  assertion  of  the 
contrary  proposition  by  Hefele,  and  his  particular  mode  of 
defending  it,  that  has  induced  us  to  enter  into  the  question 
at  all. 

The  subject  of  the  trial  and  execution  of  Huss  is  treated 
by  Hefele,  on  the  whole,  with  commendable  fairness.  There 
are  occasional  criticisms  on  the  character  and  on  the  state- 
ments of  Huss,  to  which  we  do  not  assent,  but  which  are  to 
be  expected  from  a  Roman  Catholic,  even  though  his  pro- 
clivities are  humane  and  liberal.  Huss,  though  strongly  in- 
fluenced by  the  writings  of  Wickliffe,  was  quite  a  different 
man  in  his  intellectual  cast.  Huss  did  not  carry  out  his 
principles,  as  Wickliffe  did,  to  their  logical  consequences ; 
although,  had  he  lived  longer,  he  might  have  worked  out  a 
more  complete  system.  The  council  found  it  difficult  to 
fasten  on  propositions  w^hich,  in  the  sense  in  which  they 
were  intended  by  him,  could  justly  be  declared  heretical ; 
and  the  impatience  and  passion  of  the  assembly  prevented 
him  from  having  a  fair  and  attentive  hearing.  His  occa- 
sional paradoxes,  which  were  in  themselves  innocent,  were 
perversely  construed  into  an  assault  upon  the  foundations  of 
civil  as  well  as  ecclesiastical  authority.  But  the  council 
were  sagacious  enough  to  discern  that  he  disowned  the  au- 
thority of  the  church,  and  placed  himself  on  the  Scriptures 
as  he  understood  them.  He  was,  in  truth,  a  Protestant  in 
this  essential  principle.  He  was  ready  to  renounce  errors, 
if  he  could  be  convinced  that  his  opinions  were  errors ;  but 
he  would  not  abjure  his  opinions  at  the  mere  command  of 
the  council.  He  presented  thus,  in  the  attitude  which  he 
assumed  before  that  body,  a  practical  demonstration  to  their 
eyes  that  he  was  a  heretic.  D'Ailly,  Gerson,  and  the  rest 
of  the  eminent  men  who  led  in  the  council,  and  who  were 


110  THE   COUNCIL    OF   CONSTANCE    AND 

ready  to  pull  the  offending  Pope  down  from  liis  throne, 
were  attached  as  firmly  as  possible  to  the  doctrine  of  hier- 
archical authority.  They  simply  held  the  episcopal,  aristo- 
cratic theory  that  this  authority  inheres  not  in  the  Pope  per- 
sonally, but  is  diffused  through  the  hierarchical  body ;  that 
the  centre  of  gravity  is  in  the  whole  assembly  of  bishops, 
and  not  in  the  primate.*  They  felt  it  the  more  necessary, 
since  they  were  effecting  changes  with  a  high  hand,  to  mark 
the  limits  of  the  reform  which  they  aspired  to  achieve ;  ancj 
this  limit,  as  one  has  said,  they  did  mark  with  blood.  Every 
enlightened  Protestant  Christian  who  believes  that  the  Scrip- 
tures are  the  guide  in  doctrine  and  life,  and  that  the  disci- 
ple has  the  right  to  intei-pret  the  Scriptures  for  himself, 
looks  up  to  Huss  as  a  noble  witness  for  the  truth  and  an  il- 
lustrious martyr.  It  is  evident  that  his  uprightness,  his  sin- 
cerity, his  unfaltering  courage,  his  spirit  of  forgiveness,  so 
like  that  of  the  Master,  make  a  deep  impression  even  upon 
men  like  Hefele,  who  yet  deem  his  doctrinal  position  an  er- 
roneous one.  Luther  said,  in  view  of  the  words  and  con- 
duct of  Huss,  that  if  he  was  not  a  good  Christian,  there 
never  was  one. 

Eespecting  the  execution  of  Huss,  Hefele  has  interesting  re- 
marks, which  are  designed  to  soften  the  condemnation  which 

*  The  Gallicans  distic^ished  between  the  ecclesia  universalis,  on  the 
one  hand,  whose  only  head  is  Christ,  and  in  which  are  included  Pope, 
cardinals  and  prelates,  priests,  kings  and  princes,  and  people  (plebeii), 
and  in  which  there  is  salvation,  even  if  there  were  no  Pope  to  be  found 
in  the  world,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  more  restricted  ecclesia  apos- 
tolica,  composed  of  Pope,  bishops,  and  other  ecclesiastics,  which  is  common- 
ly called  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  of  which  the  Pope  is  considered  the 
head.  The  Church  Universal  can  never  err ;  the  Church  of  Rome  can 
err  and  fall  into  heresy.  "Et  haec  longe  minoris  auctoritatis  videtur 
esse  universali  ecclesia."  (See  the  passages  from  Gerson,  in  Niedner's 
Kirchengesch. ,  p.  560,  n.)  Some  of  the  Galilean  leaders  held  that  even 
a  general  council  could  err.  This  was  affirmed  by  Peter  d'Ailly  at  Con- 
stance. (For  the  passages,  see  Gieseler,  III.,  v.  1,  §  131,  n.  4.)  But  Gal- 
licanism  finally  settled  down  upon  the  opinion  that  a  general  council  is 
infallible. 


THE   COUNCIL    OF   THE   VATICAN.  Ill 

is  visited  on  the  council  for  this  act ;  for  it  is  the  council, 
and  not  IIuss,  which,  in  modem  days,  is  on  trial.  He  urges 
the  fact  that  all  civil  punishments  in  those  days  were  severe 
and  barbarous,  even  when  judged  by  our  standards  and  by 
existing  codes.  He  also  shows  that,  according  to  the  univer- 
sal opinion  of  that  age,  a  heretic,  convicted  by  the  proper 
ecclesiastical  authority,  should  and  must  be  put  to  death  by 
the  civil  magistrate.  Huss  was  adjudged  a  heretic  by  the 
highest  judicial  body;  and  his  opinions  were,  in  fact,  if 
compared  with  the  creed,  heretical.  The  legislation,  how- 
ever, which  inflicted  such  penalties  upon  heresy,  Hefele 
styles  "  Draconian,"  and  he  deplores  the  execution  of  Huss 
the  more,  since  great  disadvantages  have  resulted  to  the 
church  from  this  iron  legislation,  and  countless  misunder- 
standings and  misconceptions  have  been  occasioned  by  it. 

Hefele  brings  up  the  burning  of  Servetus,  as  an  illustra- 
tion of  the  sentiments  prevalent  even  a  hundred  years  later 
and  among  Protestants,  respecting  the  right  mode  of  deal- 
ing with  heretics.  The  feeble  attempts  which  have  been 
made  in  times  past  to  relieve  Calvin  from  the  responsibility 
connected  with  the  death  of  Servetus,  are  now,  for  the  most 
part,  abandoned,  as  they  ought  to  be.  Calvin,  seven  years 
before  the  arrest  of  Servetus,  said  that  if  he  came  to  Geneva, 
he  should  not,  with  his  (Calvin's)  consent,  go  away  alive. 
He  approved  and  justified  the  execution.  The  "mild  Me- 
lancthon,"  as  Hefele  truly  says,  joined  in  this  approval. 
Protestants  generally,  at  that  time,  held  that  civil  magis- 
trates should  use  the  sword,  which  is  entrusted  to  them,  for 
the  extirpation  of  heresy.  The  theory  of  religious  persecu- 
tion is  now  given  up,  for  two  reasons.  First,  there  is  un- 
doubtedly a  different  estimate  of  the  criminality  involved 
in  holding  erroneous  opinions  in  religion,  and  a  disposition 
to  more  charitable  judgment.  Along  with  this  feeling, 
there  is  a  stronger  sense  of  the  difficulty  of  measuring  the 
guilt  of  false  belief.  Yet  this  is  not  the  only,  nor  is  it  the 
chief,  influence  whicli  renders  Protestants  averse  to  the  use  of 


112  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE  AND 

force  against  what  they  consider  dangerous  and  mischievous 
errors.  J^or  is  the  experience  of  the  futility  of  forcible  and 
violent  means  for  the  defence  of  truth,  the  sole  or  the  prin- 
cipal cause  of  this  change.  We  may  hold  that  men  are 
morally  responsible  for  their  beliefs,  inasmuch  as  they  are 
responsible  for  using  those  means  of  ascertaining  the  truth 
which  God  has  placed  within  their  reach,  and  because 
character  cannot  be  dissevered  from  belief ;  and,  at  the 
same  time,  we  may  hold  that  it  is  utterly  wrong  to  use  force 
for  the  propagation  of  truth  or  the  extirpation  of  error. 
The  real  ground  of  this  view  is,  that  it  is  not  the  function 
of  the  church  to  use,  directly  or  indirectly,  any  but  moral 
influences  against  religious  error,  and  that  it  is  not  the  f imc- 
tion  of  the  state  to  punish  men  for  their  opinions.  This 
radical  alteration  in  the  view  that  is  taken  of  the  proper 
function  of  the  state,  and  of  the  church  as  well,  is  the 
ground  of  toleration;  although  the  other  motives  to  the 
exercise  of  this  spirit,  which  have  been  adverted  to,  are  co- 
gent auxiliary  reasons.  There  are  two  important  differences 
between  Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics,  in  regard  to  this 
subject.  The  first  is,  that  the  amount  of  persecution  of 
which  Protestants  have  been  guilty  is  far  less  than  that  for 
which  Catholics,  in  the  same  period  of  time,  are  account- 
able. Thus,  Protestants  have  never  perpetrated  such  cruel- 
ties as  were  perpetrated  in  the  Netherlands  by  the  Roman 
Catholics  under  Philip  of  Spain  and  through  the  Inquisi- 
tion. This  difference  is  not  an  unimportant  one ;  since  it 
shows  that  the  misgivings  which  spring  from  humane  Chris- 
tian feeling  have  had  far  more  practical  influence  in  neutral- 
izing the  power  of  wrong  principles  among  Protestants 
than  among  Roman  Catholics.  It  took  some  time  for 
Protestants  to  emancipate  themselves  from  the  theory  of 
persecution,  which  was  an  heir-loom  from  the  middle  ages 
and  the  Catholic  hierarchy ;  but  even  before  this  happy  re- 
sult was  consummated,  it  was  manifest  that  the  old  princi- 
ple of  suppressing  error  by  force  had  relaxed  its  hold  upon 


THE   COUNCIL    OF   THE   VATICAN.  113 

the  Protestant  mind.  The  main  difference  between  Protes- 
tants and  Catholics  on  this  subject,  however,  is  that  while 
we  disown  the  theory  of  persecution,  and  lament  that  Prot- 
estants should  have  been  so  mistaken  as  to  be  guilty  of  it ; 
while,  in  short,  we  heartily  repent,  so  far  as  one  generation 
can  repent  of  the  errors  of  another,  of  all  the  instances  of  re- 
ligious persecution  in  which  Protestants  bore  a  part,  the  Cath- 
olic Church  makes  no  such  confession  and  exercises  no  such 
compunction.  Hefele  may  deplore  the  severity  of  the  sen- 
tence against  Huss,  but  even  he  does  not  commit  himself  to 
an  absolute  rejection  of  the  theory  on  which  that  sentence 
was  pronounced.  To  the  attitude  of  the  Catholic  Church 
generally  on  this  point,  we  shall  soon  have  occasion  again 
to  refer. 

The  true  force  and  intent  of  the  safe-conduct  which  Sigis- 
mund  had  given  to  Huss,  is  a  topic  of  much  interest  to  the 
historical  student.  Did  the  safe-conduct,  properly  interpret- 
ed, protect  the  bearer  of  it  against  the  council,  as  well  as 
from  attacks  which  might  emanate  from  all  other  persons  and 
bodies  ;  or  was  it  merely  a  passport  ensuring  his  safety  on 
the  journey  to  Constance,  a  hearing  before  the  council,  and 
a  safe  return  in  case  of  acquittal  ?  This  last  interpretation 
is  strenuously  advocated  by  Hefele.  With  him  agrees  Pa- 
lacky,  the  learned  and  usually  accm-ate  historian  of  Bohemia.* 
The  same  view  is  adopted  by  Leo,  the  German  historian,  al- 
though his  very  lukewarm  Protestantism  should  prevent  him 
from  being  quoted,  as  he  sometimes  is,  as  a  Protestant 
authority.  On  the  other  side  are  Hallam  and  most  of  the 
other  Protestant  historians.  Xeander  speaks  of  the  restrict- 
ed interpretation  of  the  safe-conduct  as  a  device  of  modem 
sophistical  historians,  and  considers  that  Sigismund  was 
guilty  of  a  perfidious  violation  of  his  promise. 

How  stands  the  evidence  ?     If  we  look  at  the  terms  of  the 

*  QescMchte  der  Bohmen,  III.,  ii.,  p.  357,  n. 


114  THE   COUNCIL   OF   CONSTANCE   AND 

safe-conduct,  we  find  that  Huss  is  taken  nnder  the  protection 
of  Sigismund  and  of  the  empire,  and  that  all  lords  and  mag- 
istrates are  enjoined  to  permit  him,  without  hindrance  or  mo- 
lestation, to  go  and  return — "  transire,  stare,  morari,  et  redire 
libere."  Hefele  concedes  that  his  safe  return  was  guaran- 
teed, provided  he  should  be  acquitted  ;  but  no  exception  or 
proviso  is  found  in  the  document  itself.  This  exception 
Hefele  considers  to  be  implied  in  the  nature  of  the  case. 
Huss  was  going  before  a  judicial  body  to  be  tried,  and  it  is 
not  to  be  supposed  that  the  emperor  would  undertake  to 
protect  him  against  the  very  tribunal  before  which,  as  an  ac- 
cused person,  he  was  to  make  answer.  The  reply  to  this  is, 
that  Huss  did  not  so  regard  the  council.  He  often  said  that 
he  desired  to  bring  his  cause  before  the  council ;  but  in 
his  expressions  of  this  nature,  there  is  always  the  avowed  or 
implied  qualification,  that  unless  he  can  be  convinced  of  the 
error  of  his  opinions,  he  shall  not  abandon  them.  To  give 
up  his  alleged  errors,  provided  they  can  be  shown  to  be  such, 
he  ever  professes  his  readiness,  but  only  on  this  condition. 
In  reality,  he  wished  to  vindicate  himself  before  so  great  an 
assembly,  and  in  this  public  and  conspicuous  manner,  against 
aspersions  that  had  been  thrown  out  by  his  enemies,  and  he 
wished  to  show  what  sort  of  a  man  he  was  by  a  free  and 
open  declaration  of  his  opinions  and  feelings.  It  was  always 
far  from  his  design,  as  his  whole  conduct  as  well  as  words 
prove,  to  surrender  the  convictions  of  his  own  mind,  in  con- 
sequence of  a  mandate  from  any  man  or  body  of  men.  Ko 
weight,  therefore,  is  to  be  attached  to  this  argument  of  Hefele, 
especially  as  there  is  no  evidence  that  Sigismund,  prior  to  the 
council,  had  a  materially  different  idea  respecting  the  design 
of  Huss's  visit  to  Constance,  from  that  of  Huss  himself.  But 
what  was  the  interpretation  which  Huss  himself  gave  to  the 
safe-conduct  ?  He  considered  that  Sigismund  had  bound 
himself  to  bring  him  back  in  safety  to  Bohemia.  In  one  of 
his  last  letters,  he  accuses  Sigismund  of  breaking  his  engage- 
ment, and  says,  that  he  ought  to  have  told  the  council :  "If 


THE   COTTNCIL    OF    THE   VATICAN.  115 

he  (Huss)  does  not  choose  to  abide  the  decision  of  the  coun- 
cil, I  will  send  him  to  the  king  of  Bohemia,  together  with 
your  sentence  and  the  documents  in  support  of  it,  to  the  end 
that  he  [the  king]  with  his  clergy  may  judge  him."  *  Huss 
adds  that  Sigismund  had  allowed  Henry  Lefi  and  others  to 
say  to  him,  that  he  should  be  brought  back  imhurt,  in  case 
he  chose  not  to  submit  to  the  judgment  of  the  council. 
Peter  von  Mladenowicz,  the  friend  of  Huss,  declares  the 
same  thing.  Hefele  and  Palacky  say  that  nothing  should 
have  been  built  by  Huss  and  his  friends  on  such  declarations, 
since  they  manifestly  transcended  the  bounds  of  Sigismund's 
lawful  power.  But  this  answer  appears  to  us  insufficient. 
The  veracity  of  Huss  cannot  be  called  in  question  ;  and  if 
the  official  agents  of  Sigismund  gave  him  this  assurance,  it 
is  probable  that  Sigismund  expected  to  be  able  to  verify  it. 
That  Sigismund  blushed  when  Huss  fixed  his  eyes  upon  him, 
at  the  moment  when  the  sentence  of  the  council  was  pro- 
nounced, rests  upon  the  testimony  of  a  credible  eye-witness. 
That  it  was  a  fact  widely  reported,  may  be  inferred  from  the 
remark  of  Charles  Y.  at  Worms,  when,  in  reference  to  a 
suggestion  that  he  should  avail  himself  of  the  opportunity 
to  lay  hold  of  Luther,  he  said  that  he  would  not  blush  like 
his  predecessor  Sigismund.  Whether  more  or  less  impor- 
tance is  attached  to  this  famous  blush  of  Sigismund,  the  fact 
seems  to  rest  on  pretty  good  authority.  The  only  argument 
of  much  weight  on  Hefele's  side  of  the  question,  is  derived 
from  a  passage  in  one  of  the  remonstrances  addressed  by  the 
Bohemian  nobles  to  Sigismund,  after  Huss  had  been  taken 
into  custody,  and  before  he  had  been  brought  before  the 
council.  The  arrest  of  Huss,  as  is  well  known,  was  effected 
by  the  cardinals  on  their  ovm  authority,  with  the  consent  of 
John  XXHI. — involuntary  consent,  as  he  declared  to  the 
Bohemians.  It  is  acknowledged  on  all  hands  that  this  im- 
prisonment was  considered,  by  the  Bohemian  friends  of  Huss, 

*  The  language  of  Huss  is  given  by  Hefele,  p.  226. 


116  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE  AND 

and  by  Sigismiind  himself,  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  terms 
of  the  safe-conduct.  Sigismund,  having  threatened  to  liber- 
ate him  hj  force,  actually  went  so  far  as  to  quit  Constance 
— so  indignant  was  he  that  the  council  did  not  adopt  effi- 
cient means  to  relieve  him  from  this  disgrace.  It  was  only 
when  it  was  strongly  represented  to  him  that  if  the  council 
was  to  be  controlled  in  its  action,  all  the  hopes  of  reform 
and  of  terminating  the  schism  would  be  nipped  in  the  bud, 
that  he  consented  to  come  back.  When  by  the  flight  of  his 
custodians,  Huss  was  released  from  the  hands  of  the  cardi- 
nals, the  Bohemians  were  confident  in  the  expectation  that 
Sigismund  would  deliver  him  from  his  cruel  confinement  and 
procure  for  him  a  hearing  before  the  council.  When  this 
did  not  follow,  but  Huss  was  still  kept  in  prison,  the  Bohe- 
mians were  yet  more  aggrieved  and  exasperated.  Among 
the  petitions  and  remonstrances  with  which  they  endeavored 
to  move  the  council  and  Sigismund  to  fulfill  the  obligations 
under  which  he  had  placed  himself,  there  is  one  in  which 
they  say,  that  provided  Huss  is  found  guilty  before  the 
council,  and  his  false  doctrine  is  shown  to  him,  they  do  not 
expect  that  he  is  to  go  away  unpunished,  but  that  the  em- 
peror may  then  do  with  him  what  he  chooses.  The  phrase 
is : — "  Kec  vero  cupimus,  ut  convictus,  falsaque  doctrina  ipsi 
ostensa,  impunitus  abeat.  Sed  tum  prout  potest,  cum  ipso 
agat,  deque  ipso  quod  vult  f  aciat."  *  Possibly  they  mean  no 
more  than  Huss  meant  himself  in  his  professions  of  a  will- 
ingness to  bow  to  the  council,  if  they  will  show  him — that 
is,  make  him  see — that  he  is  in  error.  We  must  allow  that 
this  is  not  the  most  natural  interpretation  of  the  phrase.  It 
is  more  naturally  interpreted  as  implying  a  strong  desire 
that  he  should  be  delivered  from  his  gaolers  and  be  heard 
before  the  council,  with  the  judgment  of  which,  even  if  un- 
favorable to  Huss,  his  friends  would  be  content.  If  this  be 
the  true  meaning  of  the  passage  in  the  Bohemians'  petition 

*  Van  der  Hardt,  iii.,  33. 


THE   COUNCIL    OF   THE   VATICAN.  117 

to  Sigismnnd,  we  must  conclude  that  the  exact  sense  of  the 
safe-conduct  was  not  definitely  understood  by  all  of  the  par- 
ties concerned,  and  that  a  discussion  and  difference  of  opin- 
ion as  to  its  intent  and  scope  sprung  up,  when  the  true  mean- 
ing of  it  became  a  matter  of  vital  moment.* 

In  this  place,  we  may  notice  an  unjust  criticism  of  Hefele 
upon  Gieseler.  Says  the  former  :  "  Finally,  in  reference  to 
the  letter  of  safe-conduct,  another  still  heavier  offence  has 
been  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  Council  of  Constance,  which 
Gieseler  thus  formulizes  :  *  in  order  to  justify  the  emperor 
on  account  of  his  violated  safe-conduct,  the  council  put 
forth  the  shameless  decree,  that  no  faith  is  to  be  kept  with  a 
heretic ! '  For  the  sake  of  giving  at  least  the  semblance  of 
a  proof,  Gieseler  cites  two  decrees  of  the  Constance  Sjmod, 
which  Yan  der  Hardt  (t.  iv.,  p.  521)  and  Mansi  (t.  xxvii., 
pp.  791  and  799)  have  communicated.  The  first  of  them 
says :  '  if  a  prince,  also,  has  given  out  a  letter  of  safe-con- 
duct, the  Ecclesiastical  Court  is  still  authorized  to  bring  the 
person  charged  with  heresy  to  an  examination,  and,  if  he  shows 
himself  guilty  and  contumacious,  to  punishment ;  neverthe- 
less, he  who  has  given  the  safe-conduct  is  bound,  as  far  as 
stands  in  his  power,  to  labor  to  fulfil  it.'  I  know  not  what 
solid  objection  any  one,  from  the  stand-point  of  those  times, 
could  bring  to  this.  But  against  Gieseler  it  can  be  said  with 
the  best  reason,  that  he  has  grossly  sinned  against  the  synod 
and  against  the  truth,  in  just  leaving  out  the  conclusion  of 
the  reprobated  decree,  viz. :  '  that  the  giver  of  the  safe-con- 
duct must  do  his  utmost  to  fulfil  it.'  "  Gieseler  combines 
with  an  unsurpassed  thoroughness  of  investigation  an  un- 
equalled accuracy  of  statement.  His  frigid  impartiality  is 
one  of  his  leading  characteristics.     He  is  totally  incapable 

*  The  safe- conduct  obtained  for  Jerome  was  differently  drawn  up ;  but 
this  proceeded  from  the  council. 

Ferdinand,  King  of  Aragon,  exerted  himself  to  persuade  Sigismund 
that  he  ought  not,  on  account  of  the  safe-conduct,  to  protect  the  heretic 
from  the  penalty  of  death. 


118  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE  AND 

of  a  wilful  suppressio  ve7'i.  Looking  into  Yan  der  Ilardt, 
we  find  that  the  decree  referred  to  is  abbreviated  and  imper- 
fectly paraphrased  by  Hefele,  in  the  passage  just  cited. 
The  decree  declares  that  a  safe-conduct  issued  to  heretics  or 
persons  charged  with  heresy,  by  kings  or  other  princes,  with 
whatever  bond  they  may  have  bound  themselves — quocunque 
vinculo  se  astrinxerint — can  work  no  prejudice  to  the  Catho- 
lic faith  and  interpose  no  hindrance  in  the  way  of  the  ar- 
raignment and  punishment  of  such  persons  by  the  proper 
ecclesiastical  tribunal,  even  though  they  may  have  come  to 
the  place  of  trial,  trusting  in  the  safe-conduct,  and  would 
not  have  come  without  it.  Then  follows  the  concluding 
sentence,  omitted  by  Gieseler  :  "  IS'or  is  the  promisor,  when 
he  has  otherwise  done  what  in  him  lies,  any  further  obliged, 
in  consequence  of  his  engagement."  *  Now,  it  is  obvious  that 
this  sentence  does  not  affect  materially  the  import  of  the  de- 
cree. But  in  the  text  of  Yan  der  Hardt,  it  is  given  in 
brackets  (with  a  reference  to  two  manuscripts  in  which  it  is 
found) ;  and  it  was  probably  a  doubt  as  to  its  genuineness 
that  led  Gieseler  to  leave  it  out.  The  second  decree,  assert- 
ing that  in  the  matter  of  a  safe-conduct,  faith  need  not  be 
kept  by  princes  with  heretics,  Hefele  declares  not  to  have 
been  passed  by  the  comicil,  and  to  be  found  only  in  one  co- 
dex. But  it  is  given  as  authentic  by  Yan  der  Hardt,  and 
although  Hefele's  view  may,  perhaps,  be  correct,  that  it  was 
a  programme  or  original  proposition  for  which  the  first 
quoted  decree  was  substituted — this  decree  being  the  one 
that  actually  passed  in  the  general  session — there  is  not  the 
smallest  ground  for  impugning  the  honesty  and  impartiality 
of  Gieseler.  The  decree,  in  the  most  offensive  form  of  it, 
asserts  that  the  king  had  done  what  he  lawfully  could  and 
what  it  behoved  him  to  do,  in  the  matter  of  the  safe-con- 
duct, t     The  obnoxious  clause  affirms  that  Huss,  by  persist- 

*  Nee  sic  promittentem,  cum  alias  fecerit  quod  in  ipso  est,  ex  hoc  in 
aliquo  remansisse  obligatum. 

f  "  Ex  debito  fecisse  quod  licuit,  et  quod  decuit  Regiam  Majestatem." 


THE    COUNCIL   OF   THE   VATICAN.  119 

ently  attacking  the  orthodox  faith,  has  put  himself  beyond 
the  pale — reddiderit  alienum — of  every  safe-conduct  and 
privilege  ;  "  nor  is  any  faith  or  promise  to  be  kept  with  him, 
by  natural  right,  divine  or  human,  to  the  prejudice  of  the 
Catholic  Church."  The  doctrine  which  both  decrees  were 
framed  to  embody,  was  the  same,  namely,  that  a  safe-con- 
duct from  a  secular  prince  gives  to  a  heretic  no  protection 
against  the  lawful  ecclesiastical  tribunal.  The  decree  which, 
according  to  Hef ele,  was  passed,  simply  f ormulizes  this  doc- 
trine. The  other  decree  adds  the  reason  that  promises  of 
protection  to  one  who  tm-ns  out  to  be  an  obstinate  heretic 
are  ipso  facto  void.  The  theologians,  from  the  first,  en- 
deavored to  indoctrinate  Sigismund  with  the  idea  that  his 
safe-conduct  was  limited  and  qualified  by  the  absolute  rights 
of  the  ecclesiastical  tribunal  to  try  and  convict  heretics; 
and  there  were  not  wanting  those  who  put  the  doctrine  in 
the  repulsive  form  in  which  it  appears  in  the  draft  of  the 
second  decree  referred  to  by  Gieseler.  It  is  evident  that 
there  was  complaint  and  loud  complaint  that  Sigismund  had 
broken  his  engagement ;  otherwise,  there  would  have  been 
no  occasion  for  such  a  decree,  in  either  form.  The  decree 
which  Hefele  allows  to  have  been  passed,  proves  not  less 
clearly  than  the  other,  that  an  accusation  of  bad  faith  had 
been  brought  against  the  emperor,  which  was  founded  on 
his  failure  to  protect  Huss  from  the  penalty  imposed  by  the 
council. 

Huss  was  condemned.  The  old  quarrel  in  the  university 
of  Prague,  which  resulted  in  the  desertion  of  the  university 
by  the  whole  body  of  German  teachers  and  students,  had 
some  influence  in  increasing  that  spirit  of  hostility  towards 
the  Bohemian  innovators,  which  inflamed  the  comicil ;  but 
the  influence  of  this  circumstance  was  comparatively  small. 
The  philosophical  quarrel  between  nominalism,  which  was 
now  once  more  in  the  ascendancy  at  Paris  and  elsewhere, 
and  realism,  to  which  in  common  with  Ansel m  and  the 
most  orthodox  of  the  schoolmen,  Huss,  like  Wickliffe,  ad- 


120  THE   COUNCIL    OF   CONSTANCE   AND 

liered,  sharpened  the  antagonism  of  Gerson.  But  the  vio- 
lent and  mob-like  deportment  of  the  council,  which  con- 
trasts so  unfavorably  with  the  noble  serenity  and  self-pos- 
session of  their  victim,  w^as  due  to  the  vindictive  hatred  which 
was  felt  towards  what  they  called  heresy.  This  sentiment 
was  sufficient  to  paralyze  all  wiser  and  more  humane  feel- 
ings, even  in  the  hearts  of  good  men — for  such,  we  doubt 
not,  were  many  of  those  who  killed  IIuss,  and  for  whose 
forgiveness  he,  remembering  the  words  of  his  dying  Master, 
prayed.  Say  what  one  will  of  minor,  incidental  questions, 
like  this  of  the  intent  of  the  safe-conduct,  and  bring  for- 
ward what  other  examples  one  may  of  ecclesiastical  tyranny 
and  cruelty,  it  remains  true  that  a  frightful  tragedy  was  en- 
acted at  Constance,  when  a  sincere,  earnest  preacher  of  the 
Gospel,  inspired  with  heroic  courage  and  Christian  gentle- 
ness, and  so  elevated  by  faith  and  love  that  death  had  for 
him  no  terrors,  was  killed  for  his  opinions  by  men  who 
claimed  to  be  acting  in  the  name  of  Jesus  and  by  his  author- 
ity. Luther  published  four  of  the  impressive  letters  which 
Iluss  wrote  while  he  was  in  prison  and  shortly  before  his 
death,  "^  and  in  the  preface  Luther  gives  an  interesting  remi- 
niscence concerning  himself.  He  says  that  when  he  was  a 
young  theologue  at  Erfurt,  he  took  down  fi'om  the  convent 
library  a  volume  of  IIuss's  sermons.  He  was  curious  to  see 
for  what  heresies  it  was  that  Huss  had  been  killed  ;  but,  as 
he  read,'  he  was  struck  with  astonishment  that  a  man  w^ho 
wrote  in  so  excellent  and  Christian  a  way  should  have  been 
burned  to  death  for  heresy.  As  he  put  back  the  volume, 
he  thought  to  himself — not  knowing  then  the  particulars  of 
the  history — that  Iluss  must  have  become  a  heretic  after 
writing  these  seraions. 

Bossuet  wrote  a  book  on  the  variations  of  Protestantism. 
Quite  as  copious  and  telling  a  book  might  be  written  on  the 

*  These  letters  are  included  in  the  edition  of  Huss's  letters  in  prison, 
published  by  Micowek. 


THE    COrNCIL   OF   THE    VATICAN.  121 

variations  of  Roman  Catholicism;  and,  we  may  add,  in 
snch  a  work  the  name  of  Bossuet  himself  would  figure 
largely.  Bellarmine,  an  eminent  exponent  of  the  Papal,  anti- 
Gallican  theology,  and  a  great  name  in  the  estimation  of  all 
parties,  resorts  to  different  subterfuges  in  order  to  escape 
from  the  difficulty  occasioned  by  the  Constance  decrees  rela- 
tive to  the  power  of  a  council.*  He  brings  forward  the  ut- 
terly false  position  of  Turrecremata,  Campegius,  and  others, 
that  the  Constance  propositions  were  meant  to  apply  only  to 
times  of  schism,  when  opinion  is  divided  as  to  who  is  the 
lawful  Pope.  He  denies,  of  course,  that  Martin  Y.  opposed 
the  decrees  in  question,  and  makes  the  term  conciliariter,  or 
concilialiter^  mean  "  after  the  manner  of  other  councils,  the 
matter  having  been  diligently  examined  ;  "  a  totally  differ- 
ent definition  from  either  of  those  given  by  Hef ele,  and  one 
altogether  unfounded.  Equally  unfounded  is  the  assertion 
that  when  Martin  approved  of  the  decrees  which  had  been 
adopted  defids  and  concilialiter^  he  referred  solely  to  those 
against  the  Wickliffites  and  Hussites.  Bellarmine  denies 
that  John  XXIH.  and  Gregory  IX.  were  deposed  against 
their  will,  and  affirms  that,  admitting  that  they  were,  the 
power  to  depose  them  does  not  involve  the  power  to  frame 
new  dogmas.  His  whole  treatment  of  this  question  is  ac- 
cording to  his  usual  method,  which  is  to  bring  forward 
everything  that  can  be  said,  with  any  degree  of  plausibility, 
against  the  antagonist,  whether  the  considerations  advanced 
are  consistent  with  one  another  or  not.  He  is  master  of  the 
art  of  fencing ;  a  typical  polemic.  Bellarmine  maintains  the 
opinion  that  the  Pope  is  absolutely  superior  to  a  council, 
and  that  he  cannot  be  deposed.f  In  an  earlier  section  of  his 
work,  :|:  he  takes  up  the  question  whether  a  heretical  Pope 
can  be  deposed,  and  discusses  it  at  length.  He  begins  by 
stating  the  opinion  of  Pighius  that  a  Pope  cannot  be  a  here- 

♦  C.  III.,  lib.  ii.,  c.  xix.,  p.  1222  seq. 
f  C.  IV.,  1.  ii.,  c.  xxii.  seq.  %  C.  HI-,  "-,  c-  xxx. 

6 


122  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE  AND 

tic,  and  with  this  opinion  he  expresses  his  concurrence. 
"  Yet,"  he  adds,  "  because  it  is  not  certain,  aind  the  common 
opinion  is  the  ojyposite  " — "  communis  opinio  est  in  contra- 
rium  " — "  it  will  be  worth  while  to  see  what  answer  can  be 
given,  provided  it  be  allowed  that  the  Pope  can  be  a  heretic." 
It  seems,  by  Bellarmine's  own  concession,  that  it  was  the 
common  opinion  that  a  Pope  could  fall  into  heresy.  Bellar- 
mine,  with  the  rest  of  the  advocates  of  the  indefectibility  of 
the  Pope,  is  involved  in  extreme  embarrassment  by  exam- 
ples like  those  of  Liberius,  who  cast  off  Athanasius,  signed 
the  confession  of  the  semi-Arians,  and  received  them  to  his 
fellowship,  and  of  Honorius,  who  espoused  the  cause  of  the 
Monothelites,  and  was  anathematized  as  a  heretic  by  the  6  th 
General  Council,  as  well  as  by  several  of  his  own  successors. 
The  various  evasions  that  have  been  sought  out  for  the  pur- 
pose of  avoiding  these  unwelcome  facts,  form  a  curious 
chapter  in  polemical  theology.  Hefele,  while  he  contends 
that  Liberius  was  not  a  heretic  in  his  real  opinion  on  the 
Trinity,  allows  that  his  constancy  so  far  broke  down,  that  he 
purchased  his  return  from  exile  by  deserting  the  orthodox 
Athanasians,  abjuring  the  term  homoousion  (and  with  it,  of 
course,  giving  up  the  Nicene  creed),  and  by  joining  hands 
with  heretics.  Xewman,  in  his  edition  of  Athanasius,  styles 
Liberius  "  a  renegade."  *  He  speaks  of  that  time  as  one 
when  "  the  Latins "  were  "  committed  to  an  anti-Catholic 
creed,  the  Pope  a  renegade,  Ilosius  fallen  and  dead,  Atha- 
nasius wandering  in  the  deserts,  Arians  in  the  sees  of  Chris- 
tendom," etc.  That  Liberius  gave  up  the  Nicene  formulary 
and  allied  himself  with  the  semi-Arians,  is  an  im questiona- 
ble fact.  Athanasius,  Jerome,  and  Hilary  are  strong  wit- 
nesses to  his  unfaithfulness.  The  instance  of  Honorius  is 
still  more  perplexing  to  the  curialists.  He  expressed  his 
concurrence  with  the  Monothelite,  Sergius.  All  that  Hefele 
can  claim  in  behalf  of  him  is,  that  he  was  a  Dyothelite  at 

*  P.  127,  N.  c. 


THE    COUNCIL    OF   THE   VATICAN.  123 

hearty  but  not  competent  to  handle  the  question,  and  was 
therefore  led  to  the  avowal  of  opposite  principles.  That  he 
took  the  Monothelite  position  in  his  letters  to  Sergius,  will 
be  clear  to  every  unprejudiced  person  who  is  familiar  with 
the  points  that  were  under  discussion.  *  But  whether  he 
did  or  not,  it  is  a  fact  that  he  w^as  anathematized  as  a  here- 
tic by  the  6th  General  Council,  in  repeated  declarations.  It 
is  a  fact  that  this  condemnation  was  approved  by  the  Pope, 
as  well  as  by  the  emperor.  It  is  a  fact,  moreover,  that 
Pope  Leo  II.,  who  had  succeeded  Agatho,  reiterated  the 
anathema  of  the  council.  "  Pariter  anathemitizamus  novi 
erroris  inventores,  id  est,  Theodorum  Pharinitanum  episco- 
pum,  Cyrum  Alexandrinum,  Sergium,  Pyn-hum,  Paulum, 
Petrum,  Constantinopolitanse  ecclesise  subsessores  magis 
quam  prsesules,  necnon  et  Honorium,  qui  hanc  apostolicam 
sedem  non  apostolicae  traditionis  doctrina  lustravit,  sed  pro- 
fana  proditione  immaculatam  fidem  subvertere  conatus  est 
[or,  according  to  the  Greek,  subverti  permisit]  et  omnes,  qui 
in  suo  errore  defuncti  sunt."  In  a  letter  to  the  Spanish 
bishops,  and  in  another  letter  to  King  Erwig,  Leo  charged 
Honorius  with  nourishing  the  flames  of  heretical  doctrine 
and  defiling  the  spotless  rule  of  apostolic  tradition  which  he 
liad  received  from  his  predecessors.  The  TruUan  S^Tiod 
(Concilium  Quinisextum)  repeated  the  condemnation  of 
Honorius,  which  the  6th  Council  had  passed.  The  Tth 
General  Council  did  the  same,  and  so  did  the  8th.  Pope 
Hadrian  II.  (867-872)  wrote:  "  although  the  anathema  was 
pronounced  upon  Honorius  after  his  death,  yet  it  is  to  be 
understood  that  it  was  because  he  was  charged  with  heresy, 
for  which  cause  alone  it  is  allowed  to  inferiors  to  resist  the 
movements  of  tlieir  superiors."  This  declaration  of  Ha- 
drian was  read  and  approved  in  the  7th  session  of  the  8th 
General  Council.  Hefele  shows  fully  and  conclusively  that 
Honorius  was  condemned  by  the  6th  General  Council  for 

*  See,  on  this  point,  Neander,  HE.,  179,  n,  3. 


124:  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE  AND 

heresy.  He  holds  that  the  council  was  right  in  doing  this, 
since  they  con  Id  not  look  into  his  heart,  but  must  judge  his 
declarations  and  avowals,  which  are  reallj  heretical.  The 
foolish,  because  desperately  futile,  endeavor  of  Baronius  to 
make  out  that  the  name  of  Honorius  had  been  falsely  in- 
serted in  the  proceedings  of  the  6th  General  Council,  is  com- 
pletely demolished  in  the  third  volume  of  Hefele,  where 
proofs  of  the  foregoing  statements  may  be  found.  Popes 
and  councils,  then,  have  united  in  anathematizing  Honorius 
as  a  patron  and  supporter  of  heresy.  Did  they  believe  that 
a  Pope  is  indefectible  ?  When  Popes  acknowledged  the  6th 
General  Council  and  anathematized  Honorius,  did  they  hold 
the  doctrine  that  a  Pope  cannot  err  from  the  faith  ?  When 
all  other  subterfuges  fail,  the  defenders  of  Papal  infallibility 
set  up  the  plea  that  Honorius  was  uttering  private  opinions, 
not  public  definitions  of  doctrine !  Letters,  then,  from  the 
Bishop  of  Pome  to  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  on  a  doc- 
trinal question  that  is  agitating  the  whole  church,  are  desti- 
tute of  authority ! 

Since  writing  the  foregoing  remarks  upon  the  case  of 
Honorius,  we  have  received  the  pamphlet  of  M.  Gratry,^ 
priest  of  the  Oratoire  and  member  of  the  French  Academy, 
which  relates  to  just  this  topic.  M.  Gratry  is  a  distinguished 
writer  upon  philosophy  and  theology.  We  recollect  that 
his  able  work  on  The  Knowledge  of  God\  is  preceded 
by  a  commendatory  letter  from  Pius  IX.  In  the  little 
pamphlet  before  us,  M.  Gratry  expresses  his  strong  sense  of 
the  wrong  that  is  done  to  history  by  the  attempts  to  falsify 
the  testimonies  to  the  condemnation  of  Honorius  for  heresy. 
He  shows  that  Honorius  was  condemned  for  heresy  "  by 
three  oecumenical  councils  which  were  approved  by  the 
Popes,  by  two  Koman  councils,  which  were  presided  over 

*Mgr.  L'Eveque  D' Orleans  et  Mgr.  L'Archeveque  de  Malines.  Pre- 
miere lettre  a  Mgr.  Dechamps.  Par  A.  Gratry,  Pretre  de  Toratoire,  mem- 
bra de  Pacademie  Fran9aise.     Paris  :  1870. 

f  La  Connaissance  de  Diea. 


THE    COtTNCIL   OF   THE   VATICAN.  125 

by  Popes,  and  by  the  pontifical  profession  of  faith  in  use 
for  ages  (plusieurs  siecles).  He  exposes,  with  strong  dis- 
pleasure, the  absurd  pretense  that  the  6th  Council  meant 
anything  by  hereby  except  that  which  the  word  imports. 
He  shows  that  Leo  II.  anathematized  Honorius  for  some- 
thing besides  mere  negligence.  It  was  the  neglect  to  ex- 
tinguish an  error  which  grew  out  of  sympathy  with  it,  and 
a  willingness  that  it  should  prevail.  He  reminds  Arch- 
bishop Manning  that  he  exposes  himself  to  the  penalty  of 
excommunication  threatened  against  all  defenders  of  here- 
tics, when,  in  the  face  of  the  verdict  of  three  general  coun- 
cils, he  assumes,  in  the  exercise  of  his  individual  judgment, 
to  pronounce  the  offending  letters  of  Honorius  to  be  free 
from  heresy.  But  M.  Gratry  is  especially  earnest  in  his  pro- 
test against  the  changes  that  have  been  introduced  into  the 
Koman  breviary  and  the  Liber  Diurnus.  In  all  the  copies 
of  the  former,  up  to  the  commencement  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  the  condemnation  of  Honorius  is  mentioned.  The 
name  of  Honorius  has  now  been  stricken  out.  The  L'lber 
Diurnus  contains  the  ancient  confession  of  faith  of  the 
Popes.  This  included  the  condemnation  of  Honorius,  but 
the  L%ber  Diurnus^  containing  the  disagreeable  passage,  is 
now  suppressed.  These  things,  together  with  the  evasions 
of  the  Papal  apologists  for  Honorius,  appear  to  M.  Gratry 
to  be  examples  of  intolerable  duplicity  and  mendacity.  He 
inquires  if  the  church  and  the  Pope  are  to  be  helped  by 
lies  !  In  the  last  number  of  the  quarterly  journal  of  Hef  ele,"^ 
there  is  a  brief  Article  by  the  learned  editor  on  the  Liher 
Diurnus.  He  affirms  that  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  at  the 
beginning  of  the  eighth  century  it  was  held  at  Kome  that  a 
Pope  might  be  subjected  to  trial  and  condemnation,  at  the 
hands  of  a  general  council,  for  heresy,  and  also  for  negli- 
gence in  his  office.  Hefele  does  not  explicitly  say,  either  in 
this  Article  or  in  his  History  of  Councils,  whether  or  not 

*  Quartal-schrift.  1869,  4. 


126  THE   COUNCIL   OF   CONSTANCE   AND 

Leo  n.  anathematized  Honorius  for  heresy  as  well  as  for 
criminal  negligence.  He  does  not  conceal,  however,  the 
fact  that  Leo  11.  approved  of  the  proceedings  of  the  6th 
Coimcil,  and  the  fact  that  by  the  council  Honorius  was 
condemned  for  being  himself  a  heretic.  That  Leo  11.  and 
the  other  Popes  meant,  in  their  reiterated  anathemas,  to 
charge  upon  Honorius  more  than  mere  remissness,  even  real 
participation  in  heresy,  is  made  evident  by  M.  Gratry.  The 
further  plea  that  Honorius  was  not  speaking  ex  cathedra^ 
when  responding  to  interrogatories  of  the  Eastern  primates 
on  a  debated  question  of  doctrine,  is  effectively  disposed  of 
in  this  little  pamphlet. 

The  Synod  of  the  Vatican,  which  Pius  IX.  has  convoked 
to  rebuke  the  errors  of  the  times,  is  a  much  less  imposing 
assemblage  than  that  which  was  gathered  within  the  ancient 
walls  of  Constance.  The  realistic  or  practical  spirit  of  the 
nineteenth  century  neither  provides  nor  craves  a  pageant 
such  as  gratified  the  taste  of  the  fifteenth.  The  mediaeval 
passion  for  symbols  and  shows  has  now,  to  a  great  extent, 
passed  away.  Everything  in  the  present  council  betokens 
the  altered  condition  of  church  and  society.  That  the  Pope 
should  gather  a  council  at  Rome,  summon  it  into  his  own 
court  and  camp,  as  it  were ;  also,  that  he  should  be  suffered 
to  mark  out  and  manage  its  proceedings,  with  little,  if  any, 
audible  remonstrance,  indicates  a  great  change,  even  since 
the  days  of  the  Tridentine  Synod,  in  the  temper  of  the 
bishops.  The  absence  of  the  sovereigns  and  princes  is 
another  notable  feature,  indicating  that  the  policy  of  the 
church  is  not  coincident  with  that  of  the  European  states, 
and  that  church  and  state  move  in  different  orbits.  The 
cabinets  stand  aloof,  prepared,  if  it  is  thought  expedient,  to 
withstand  and  thwart  the  determinations  of  the  council. 
The  church,  in  turn,  asks  no  advice  from  the  civil  rulers, 
and  is  conscious  how  little  practical  authority  she  exercises 
over  their  conduct  and  over  the  course  of  political  affairs. 

On  one  of  the  two  great  points  which  absorbed  the  at- 


THE   COUNCIL   OF   THE   VATICAN.  127 

tention  of  the  fathers  at  Constance,  there  is  a  remarkable 
contrast  between  that  body  and  the  one  now  in  session. 
The  prerogatives  of  the  Pope  are  again  a  topic  of  discus- 
sion ;  but  we  find  a  powerful  party  in  favor  of  declaring  the 
personal  infallibility  of  the  Pope.  If  a  general  council 
could  be  brought  to  renounce  the  very  prerogative  which 
liberal  Catholics  have  claimed  for  it,  that  would  be  a 
triumph  for  the  papacy  indeed.  The  monster  which  has 
60  lone:  lifted  its  head  ao^ainst  the  chair  of  Peter  would 
strangle  itself.  The  principles  and  aims  of  the  ultramon- 
tanist  party  are  well  set  forth  in  the  Pastoral  Letter  of 
Archbishop  Manning,  one  of  their  most  prominent  leaders. 
He  writes  in  vigorous  English.  It  is  almost  a  pleasure  to 
read  invectives  against  one's  self,  when  they  are  uttered  in 
the  terse  and  polished  style  of  this  noted  prelate.  We  find 
in  his  pamphlet  a  distinct  expression  of  the  ultramontanist 
theology,  the  very  principles  which  Innocent  III.  proclaimed 
when  the  papacy  was  at  the  summit  of  its  power.  The 
Lord  made  Peter,  and  the  successors  of  Peter,  the  fountain 
both  of  doctrine  and  of  jurisdiction.  Episcopal  authority, 
therefore,  is  derived  from  the  Pope  and  through  him.  He 
is  the  bishop  of  bishops,  and  the  doctor  of  the  universal 
church.  We  cannot  praise  Bossuet,  "when  his  illustrious 
name  is  under  a  cloud."  "  Ultramontanism  is  Catholic 
Christianity."  The  object  of  greatest  dislike  to  this  repre- 
sentative of  the  Papal  party  is  "  nationalism."  It  is  a 
Judaic  notion  that  began  to  rise  when  the  idea  of  Catholic 
unity  began  to  decline.  It  was  the  rise  of  modem  nation- 
alities, we  are  told,  that  caused  the  great  Western  schism  and 
Protestantism  after  it.  This  is  the  Archbishop's  protest 
against  modern  civilization,  for  modern  civilization,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  medieeval,  is  inseparable  from  the  rise  of 
nationalities  to  distinct  and  separate  existence,  and  to  a  con- 
sciousness of  separate  rights  and  obligations.  What  is  Man- 
ning's theory  ?  Does  he  think  that  the  resistance  to  Boni- 
face YIII.  by  France  was  all  wrong  ?    Does  he  approve  of 


128  THE   COUNCIL   OF   CONSTANCE  AND 

the  bulls  of  Boniface — derieis  laicos  and  all?  Does  lie 
think  that  the  European  nations  and  their  governments 
should  have  yielded  humble  submission  to  the  lofty  claims  of 
the  Papal  See  to  a  dominion  over  them  ?  Does  he  think  that 
the  Council  of  Constance  committed  a  capital  error  in  seek- 
ing to  curtail  the  Papal  office?  Should  that  council,  in- 
stead of  voting  by  nations,  have  allowed  John  XXIII.,  with 
his  host  of  Italian  ecclesiastics,  to  govern  the  Assembly  by 
their  numerical  force  ?  What  would  have  been  the  condi- 
tion of  the  Koman  Catholic  Church  if  this  had  happened  ? 
It  would  seem  that  the  Archbishop  is  prepared  to  sanction 
the  doctrine  which  the  most  ambitious  of  the  Popes  for- 
mulized  and  acted  upon,  that  the  state  is  to  be  subject  to 
the  church,  and  that  civil  governments  are  to  receive  law 
from  the  Pope.  When  one  reads,  in  the  light  of  history, 
the  Archbishop's  fine  phrases  about  the  union  of  the  two 
jurisdictions,  the  church  and  state,  and  "  the  supreme  direc- 
tion of  the  supernatural  over  the  natural  law,"  coupled  as 
these  phrases  are  vdth  denunciations  of  the  system  that 
subordinates  the  church  to  the  state,  or  makes  the  latter  in- 
dependent of  the  former,  and  with  a  general  disapproval  of 
the  "  nationalism  "  which  is  the  prevailing  characteristic  of 
the  free  civilization  of  the  modern  age,  one  is  led  to  conclude 
that  it  is  the  realization  of  the  old  and  fallen  assumptions 
of  Ilildebrand,  Innocent  III.,  and  Boniface,  that  this  entlm- 
siastic  prelate  hopes  to  behold. 

It  is  not  strange  that  French  ecclesiastics  are  affronted  at 
the  supercilious  and  slighting  tone  in  which  Manning  speaks 
of  Gallicanism.  He  affects  to  consider  this  a  transient  epi- 
sode in  the  course  of  the  history  of  the  Church  of  France ; 
a  divergence  from  the  orthodox  faith,  which  never  counted 
in  its  favor  more  than  a  fraction  of  the  French  clergy.  And 
he  identifies  Gallicanism  with  the  movement  of  Louis  XIY. 
and  the  Declaration  of  1682.  The  Archbishop  misreads 
history.  If  we  take  Gallicanism,  as  Bossuet  defines  it,  as 
consisting  of  the  three  principles  of  the  independence  of 


THE   COUNCIL   OF   THE   VATICAN.  129 

kings,  as  to  temporalities,  of  ecclesiastical  control,  the  deri- 
vation of  episcopal  authority  immediately  from  Christ,  and 
the  authority  of  councils,  we  shall  find  the  roots  of  this 
type  of  Catholicism  far  back  in  French  history.  The  pecu- 
liarities of  the  French  Church,  as  a  national  church,  claim- 
ing rights  and  privileges  of  its  own,  appear  in  full  vigor  in 
the  days  of  Charlemagne.  They  were  maintained  by  Louis 
IX.  with  persevering  energy,  against  Papal  encroachments. 
In  the  eventful  period  before  the  Protestant  movement, 
when  great  but  ineffectual  efforts  at  reform  were  attempted, 
it  was  French  doctors  and  statesmen  who  were  forward  and 
influential  in  the  effort  to  restrict  Papal  prerogatives,  as  well 
as  to  remedy  Papal  abuses.  Gallicanism  is  not  at  aU  the 
transient  and  erratic  phenomenon  which  Manning  repre- 
sents it  to  be. 

In  view  of  such  declarations  as  are  made  in  this  pam- 
phlet of  Manning,  and  in  other  publications  of  the  ultra- 
montanist  party,  the  question  arises  whether  the  council  of 
the  Vatican  is  to  reaffirm  the  principles  on  which  John 
Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague  were  led  to  the  stake.  We 
should  be  glad  to  have  explicit  information  on  this  subject. 
The  question  is  not  whether  the  form  and  degree  of  penalty 
to  be  inflicted  for  opinions  which  are  judged  heretical,  may 
not  be  changed  to  suit  modern  ideas  of  the  criminal  code.  It 
is  to  be  presumed  that  neither  Pope  nor  bishops  would  wish 
to  have  Protestants  or  other  heretics  burned  at  the  stake. 
But  the  question  is,  whether  the  principle  that  church  and 
state  may  rightfully  combine,  the  one  to  adjudge  the  de- 
gree of  their  guilt,  and  the  other  to  inflict  the  penalty  upon 
persevering  opposers  of  the  Poman  Catholic  dogmas,  is  still 
held  ?  Ought  men  to  be  punished  criminally  by  the  church, 
or  by  the  state  executing  the  church's  verdict,  for  hereti- 
cal opinions  ?  If  we  seek  for  an  answer  to  this  question  in 
the  Pope's  Encyclical,  we  find  that  the  old  doctrine  of  per- 
secution appears  to  be  approved  and  asserted,  and  the  mod- 
em doctrine  of  toleration  appears  to  be  condemned  and  de- 


130  THE   COUNCIL   OF   CONSTANCE   AND 

nounced.  The  liberty  of  conscience,  which  is  conceded  by 
modem  states,  is  set  down  among  the  damnable  errors  of  the 
times.  What  does  the  Pope  mean  ?  If  he  does  not  mean 
that  civil  governments  ought  to  use  force  to  punish  persons 
who  teach  doctrines  which  are  pronounced  by  him  or  by  the 
Catholic  Church  heretical,  what  do  these  statements  of  the 
Encyclical  signify  ?  The  "  bloody  tenet  of  persecution  "  is 
not  yet  abandoned,  but,  it  would  seem,  is  again  to  be  assert- 
ed in  audacious  opposition  to  the  humane  and  Christian 
spirit  of  the  age,  and  in  obstinate  derogation  of  the  precepts 
of  the  founder  of  Christianity. 

The  other  point  of  the  Pope's  infallibility,  in  which,  if 
the  new  dogma  is  carried,  the  Council  of  Constance  will  be 
flatly  contradicted  by  the  Vatican  Synod,  is  one  which  an 
enemy  of  the  Catholic  Church  might  wish  to  see  adopted. 
For  ourselves,  if  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  to  act  prac- 
tically upon  this  dogma,  as  it  has  done  in  regard  to  the  Im- 
maculate Conception  of  the  Virgin,  we  should  prefer  to  have 
it  defined  and  declared ;  for  then  it  would  be  more  likely  to 
awaken  opposition.  But  we  should  prefer  that  the  doctrine 
should  be  neither  practically  nor  theoretically  received.  "We 
may  desire  that  evil  should  be  manifested,  but  not  that  evil 
should  be  done,  in  order  that  good  may  come.  And  we  have 
no  hostility  to  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  except  so  far  as 
we  deem  its  doctrines  erroneous. 

One  of  Manning's  arguments  iru  favor  of  an  authoritative 
proclamation  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope  is  derived  from 
the  need  of  such  a  doctrine.  Protestants  are  told  that  the 
church  is  infallible,  but  they  taunt  Catholics  with  the  fact 
of  a  division  among  themselves  as  to  the  place  where  infal- 
libility resides.  Persons  in  quest  of  a  safe  harbor  into  which 
they  can  retreat  from  the  agitations  of  doubt,  are  exhorted  to 
cast  themselves  upon  the  authority  of  the  church  ;  but  when 
they  comply  with  the  counsel,  they  hear  it  said  by  some 
that  the  Pope's  definitions  of  doctrine  are  not  irreformable. 
We  fear,  however,  that  if  the  ultramontanists  were  to  se- 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  THE  VATICAN.  131 

cure  their  end,  difficulties  and  perplexities  would  still  re- 
main. What  are  the  bounds  and  limits  of  this  Papal  infal- 
libility ?  We  are  told  by  Perrone  and  the  other  Catholic 
theologians  of  this  school,  that  his  infallibility  relates  only 
to  matters  pertaining  to  faith  and  morals,  and  that  on  these 
matters  he  is  unerring  only  when  he  speaks  to  the  whole 
church  in  his  character  of  universal  bishop.  The  fine  dis- 
tinctions which  are  made  by  these  theologians  remind  us 
of  a  passage  in  the  Rejpublic  of  Plato,  where  Socrates,  in 
one  of  his  paradoxical  speeches,  argues  that  no  physician 
can  err,  since  when  he  mistakes  he  is  not  in  that  mistake, 
or  so  far  as  he  makes  it,  a  physician ;  and  that  no  pilot  can 
err,  since,  if  he  misleads  a  vessel,  he  is  not  in  this  act  a  pilot, 
and  so  of  the  various  trades  and  professions.  A  thousand 
questions  would  immediately  arise  respecting  the  metes  and 
bounds  of  this  supernatural  prerogative  of  the  Pope,  if  it 
were  to  be  authoritatively  ascribed  to  him.  Moreover,  the 
historical  perplexities  in  which  the  champions  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  system  would  be  involved,  already  great  enough 
to  task  them  to  the  utmost,  would  be  much  enhanced  through 
such  a  decree. 

The  Eoman  Catholic  hierarchy  assumes  to  stand,  with 
priestly  prerogatives,  between  the  soul  and  God.  This  doc- 
trine of  a  priesthood  in  the  Christian  church,  all  consistent 
Protestants  unite  in  rejecting.  It  is  the  first  great  corrup- 
tion of  Christianity.  It  is  grateful  to  notice  occasional 
symptoms  of  a  more  true  and  spiritual  conception  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  church.  Father  Hyacinthe,  in  one  of  his 
sermons  or  addresses,  remarks  that  he  cannot  look  on  these 
great  Protestant  communities,  with  all  the  fruits  of  religion 
which  they  exhibit,  as  disinherited  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
expression  is  a  very  striking  one.  It  shows  how  the  very 
warmth  and  honesty  of  Christian  feeling  may  carry  one  be- 
yond the  narrow  bounds  of  sect.  It  was  just  this  recogni- 
tion of  the  fi'uits  or  effects  of  the  Spirit,  that  opened  the 
eyes  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  and  broke  down  his  traditional 


132  THE   COUNCIL   OF   CONSTANCE   AND 

prejudice.  "  Forasmuch,"  he  said,  "  as  God  gave  them  the 
like  gift  as  he  did  unto^us,  who  believed  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  what  was  I  that  I  could  withstand  God  ? "  (Acts  xi. 
IT.)  A  like  argument  brought  all  of  the  apostles  to  give 
the  right  hand  of  fellowship  to  Paul  and  Barnabas.  They 
learned  that  the  Spirit  was  not  confined  in  the  channel  to 
which  they  had  limited  His  operations.  A  new  dispensa- 
tion had  come,  which  was  of  a  different  character  from  the 
old.  The  revival  of  Judaism  in  the  Koman  Catholic 
Church  obscured  for  ages  an  essential  peculiarity  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  Gospel  dispensation.  Such  words  as  these 
of  Father  Hyacinthe,  to  which  we  have  referred,  indicate,  in 
our  judgment,  the  way  in  which  the  Koman  Catholic  error 
and  all  sectarian  narrowness  will  ultimately  disappear. 
Good  men  will  be  compelled  to  acknowledge  that  a  Chris- 
tianity as  genuine  and  as  valuable,  it  may  be,  as  their  own, 
is  found  outside  of  the  borders  in  which  they  had  siTpposed 
it  to  be  confined. 


I^OTE.*  Mr.  Gladstone's  Discussion  of  the  Vatican 
Decrees. — The  Vatican  Council  defined  the  infallibility  of 
the  Pope,  as  follows :  "  That  the  Koman  Pontiff,  when  he 
speaks  ex  cathedra^  that  is,  when  in  discharge  of  the  office  of 
pastor  and  doctor  of  all  Christians,  by  virtue  of  his  supreme 
apostolic  authority,  he  defines  a  doctrine  regarding  faith  or 
morals  to  be  held  by  the  Universal  Church,  by  the  divine 
assistance  promised  to  him  in  blessed  Peter,  is  possessed  of 
that  infallibility  with  which  the  divine  Kedeemer  willed 
that  his  church  should  be  endowed  for  defining  doctrine  re- 
garding faith  or  morals  ;  and  that,  therefore,  such  definitions 
are  irreformable  of  themselves,  and  not  from  consent  of  the 
church."    (C.  iv.)    That  is  to  say,  when  the  Pope  puts  forth 

*  This  note  is  from  contributions  to  the  N.  Y.  Daily  TimeSj  of  March 
18,  1875,  and  The  Christian  Union,  of  April  7,  1875. 


THE   COUNCIL    OF   THE   VATICAN.  133 

a  doctrinal  or  ethical  proposition,  which  he  inj;ends  that  the 
whole  church  shall  receive,  he  is  infallible.  As  to  the  limit 
of  the  province  within  which  he  cannot  err,  it  is  a  just  infer- 
ence that  he  is  the  sole  authoritative  judge  ;  since  the  point 
whether  any  proposition  is  fairly  included  in  the  depart- 
ment of  faith  and  morals,  is  itself  a  theological  or  ethical  ques- 
tion. But  the  Vatican  Coimcil  also  accorded  to  the  Pope 
an  equally  unlimited  jurisdiction  as  regards  government  and 
discipline.  The  definitions  on  the  topic  conclude  thus :  "If, 
then,  any  shall  say  that  the  Roman  Pontiff  has  the  ofiice 
merely  of  inspection  or  direction,  and  not  full  and  supreme 
power  over  the  universal  church,  not  only  in  things  which 
belong  to  faith  and  morals,  but  also  in  those  which  relate 
to  the  jurisdiction  and  government  of  the  church  spread 
throughout  the  world;  or  assert  that  he  possesses  merely 
the  principal  part,  and  not  all  the  fulness  of  this  supreme 
power  ;  or  that  this  power  which  he  enjoys  is  not  ordinary 
and  immediate,  but  over  each  and  all  the  churches,  and  over 
each  and  all  the  pastors  and  the  faithful — let  him  be  anath- 
ema."   (C.  iii.) 

Mr.  Gladstone's  pamphlet  on  the  Yatiean  Decrees  in 
their  Relation  to  Civil  Allegiance^  is  written  in  a  grave  and 
elevated  tone,  and,  from  the  character  of  its  arguments,  as 
well  as  from  the  position  of  'the  author,  could  not  fail  to 
make  a  profound  impression.  It  is  a  powerful,  and  at  the 
same  time,  a  temperate  arraignment  of  the  Vatican  defini- 
tions quoted  above,  as  being  subversive  of  the  rights 
of  the  state  and  the  obligations  of  the  subject.  The  most 
noteworthy  replies  from  the  Poman  Catholic  side  are  those 
of  Archbishop  Manning,  Dr.  IS^ewman,  and  Monsignor 
Capel.  Dr.  l^ewman's  tract  is  marked  by  his  wonted  felicity 
in  composition  and  ingenuity  in  argument.  All  his  con- 
troversial writings  have  the  note  of  urbanity — a  charm  which 
cannot  be  said  to  belong  in  the  same  degree  to  the  produc- 
tions of  Manning.  Mr.  Gladstone's  able  and  spirited  rejoin- 
der to  his  critics  bears  the  title  of  Vaticanism,     The  f ol- 


134  THE   COUNCIL   OF   CONSTANCE   AND 

lowing  is  a  brief  statement  of  the  main  points  in  this  inter- 
esting debate. 

The  chief  allegation  in  Mr.  Gladstone's  first  pamphlet 
Was  that  the  Yatican  decrees  are  incompatible  with  the  duty 
of  obedience  to  the  civil  authority.  Incidentally  his  discus- 
sion involved  an  examination  of  the  powers  accorded  to  the 
papacy  at  present,  as  compared  with  the  past,  and  of  the 
bearing  of  the  new  ecclesiastical  measures  upon  the  liberty 
and  personal  responsibility  of  the  individual  who  submits  to 
them. 

1.  Mr.  Gladstone  is  at  issue  with  his  opponents  on  the 
authority  and  meaning  of  the  Syllabus.  This  document  was 
issued  from  Rome  in  1864.  It  purports  to  be  a  brief  state- 
ment of  the  errors  which  the  present  Pope  had  condemned 
in  his  various  allocutions,  and  other  letters  and  speeches. 
Attached  to  each  error  in  the  list  is  a  reference  to  the  par- 
ticular paper  in  which  the  more  full  and  specific  condemna- 
tion may  be  found.  The  Syllabus  was  sent,  at  the  direction 
of  the  Pope,  by  Antonelli,  to  all  bishops,  and  the  reason 
given  for  this  proceeding  in  the  accompanying  letter  was 
that  these  might  not  have  seen  all  of  the  documents  of  which 
the  Syllabus  is  an  abridgment.  Mr.  Gladstone  considered 
the  Syllabus  an  ex  cathedra  manifesto,  and  as  such  claiming 
to  be  infallible.  This  was  a  natural  view,  and  one  taken 
heretofore  by  many  Catholic  theologians.  But  this  construc- 
tion of  the  Syllabus  Dr.  Newman  denies.  He  ventures  to 
attribute  to  it  no  more  authority  than  pertained  to  the  sev- 
eral papers  that  gave  rise  to  it.  Dr.  Fessler,  the  late  Secre- 
tary-General of  the  Yatican  Council,  cautiously  takes  a  simi- 
lar ground.  Is  this  judgment  an  afterthought,  occasioned^ 
by  the  unpopularity  of  the  Syllabus,  and  the  inconveniences 
arising  from  the  position  that  all  of  its  propositions  are  in- 
fallible and  of  divine  authority  %  So  Mr.  Gladstone  evi- 
dently thinks.  Certainly  it  is  a  great  advantage  to  be  able 
to  say  of  Papal  utterances,  ancient  or  recent,  that  they  are 
not  ex  cathedra  y  especially  when  the  Pope  himself  is  the  fi- 


THE    COUNCIL    OF    THE    VATICAN.  135 

nal  judge  on  the  question.  It  is  surely  strange  to  find  him 
who  claims  to  be  the  Yiear  of  Christ  sending  a  series  of 
doctrinal  propositions  to  every  bishop  in  every  quarter  of  the 
globe — propositions  which  he  may  himself  hereafter  recall 
and  deny.  That  is  to  be  considered  ex  cathedra  teaching,  ac- 
cording to  the  Vatican  Council,  when,  "  in  discharge  of  the 
office  of  pastor  and  doctor  of  all  Christians  by  virtue  of  his 
supreme  apostolic  authority,  he  (the  Pontiff)  defines  a  doc- 
trine regarding  faith  or  morals  to  be  held  by  the  universal 
church."  What  belongs  "  to  faith  and  morals  "  it  is  for  the 
Pope  to  judge.  Under  the  circumstances,  it  was  certainly 
pardonable  for  Mr.  Gladstone  to  regard  the  Syllabus  as  the 
utterance  of  the  infallible  Oracle. 

2.  There  is  a  difference  between  Mr.  Gladstone  and  his 
antagonists  conceming  the  sense  of  the  Syllabus.  Both  Dr. 
Xewman  and  Archbishop  Manning  labor  to  pare  away  the 
offensive  parts  of  the  Syllabus,  and  to  reduce  its  denuncia- 
tions to  a  series  of  harmless  commonplaces.  For  example, 
the  rejection  of  the  liberty  of  speech  and  of  the  press  is  con- 
verted into  a  condemnation  of  blasphemous,  seditious,  and 
obscene  publications,  which,  it  is  asserted,  all  governments 
proscribe.  Mr.  Gladstone's  answer  to  this  interpretation  is 
quite  destructive.  It  is  hardly  probable  that  the  Pope 
would  take  pains  to  put  among  the  errors  of  the  times  a 
doctrine  which  nobody  holds.  Moreover,  it  happens  that 
Pius  IX.,  as  governor  of  his  own  kingdom,  illustrated  his 
idea  of  the  error  in  question,  and  that  he  denounced  the 
Austrian  laws  on  this  subject,  which  no  Protestant  would 
consider  to  be  over-liberal.  Mr.  Gladstone's  indignation  at 
this  and  other  like  attempts  to  rob  the  propositions  of  the 
Syllabus  of  their  real  intent  and  plain  import  is  not  mis- 
placed. 

3.  Another  point  in  the  contest  is  the  scope  of  the  Vatican 
definition  which  gives  to  the  Roman  Pontiff  a  "  power  of 
jurisdiction"  such  as  imposes  upon  his  subjects  "  subordina- 
tion and  true  obedience  "  not  only  in  matters  belonging  to 


136  THE   COUNCIL   OF  CONSTANCE  AND 

faith  and  morals,  but  also  "  in  those  that  appertain  to  the 
discipline  and  government  of  the  church  throughout  the 
world."  This  vast  prerogative  of  "  regimen  and  discipline  " 
makes  the  Pontiff,  according  to  Mr.  Gladstone,  an  absolute 
monarch.  Disobedience  to  his  mandates,  whatever  they  may 
be,  carries  with  it  the  perdition  of  the  soul.  In  reply.  Dr. 
IsTewman  affirms  that  "  regimen  and  discipline  "  refer  to  the 
rites  of  worship  an(J  the  internal  affairs  of  the  church.  The 
supremacy  of  the  Pope  under  this  head  is  not  absolute,  or 
exercised  with  infallible  authority,  as  Mr.  Gladstone  imag- 
ines. On  the  contrary,  it  is  conceivable  that  the  Pope  should 
misjudge,  or  otherwise  err,  in  his  prescriptions  to  individu- 
als, and  with  respect  to  concrete  cases.  Moreover,  it  is  a 
mistake  of  Mr.  Gladstone — so  Dr.  Newman  asserts — to  hold 
that  every  act  of  disobedience  to  the  Pope  is  accounted  a 
mortal  sin.  The  phraseology  of  the  Decree  is  as  follows : 
"  This  is  the  teaching  of  Catholic  truth  (Catholicae  veritatis 
doctrina),  from  which  no  one  can  deviate  without  loss  of 
faith  and  of  salvation."  It  is  the  rejection  of  the  doctrine 
that  the  Pope  is  the  supreme  governor,  not  the  single  act  of 
disobedience,  against  which  the  penalty  is  set.  Dr.  New- 
man is  here  technically  right.  But  Mr.  Gladstone  perti- 
nently suggests  that  the  Vatican  creed  says  nothing  about 
any  exceptions  to  the  duty  of  obedience.  That  such  excep- 
tions may  arise  we  can  believe  only  on  Dr.  Newman's  author- 
ity ;  and  this  admission  of  so  moderate  and  liberal  a  dispu- 
tant is  liable  at  any  time  to  be  condemned  at  Rome ;  in 
which  case.  Dr.  Newman,  on  his  own  principles,  would  have 
to  renounce  his  concession. 

4.  The  deposing  power.  Mr.  Gladstone  urges  that  the 
assumed  right  of  the  Pope  to  excommunicate  and  depose 
princes  has  never  been  given  up.  To  this  his  opponents 
answer  that  the  moral  conditions  of  the  exercise  of  this  pre- 
rogative are  absent,  and  that  to  exert  it  would,  therefore,  be 
wrong.  Among  these  moral  conditions.  Dr.  Newman,  ex- 
plicitly, and  Dr.  Manning,  more  cautiously,  include  the  con- 


THE   COUNCIL   OF   THE   VATICAN.  137 

sent  of  nations.  They  try  to  make  it  out  that  the  European 
nations  in  former  ages  constituted  the  Pope  an  arbiter  in 
their  affairs,  domestic  and  international.  From  this  view  of 
history  Mr.  Gladstone  dissents.  He  considers  it  a  very  ex- 
aggerated statement.  The  Papal  government,  in  this  par- 
ticular, always  encountered  sharp  resistance  as  a  usurpation. 
Besides,  Queen  Elizabeth  was  deposed,  she  being  a  Protes- 
tant. The  lame  defence  of  Archbishop  Manning  is  that  she 
was  baptized  a  Catholic,  which  is  not  even  true  in  fact. 
Moreover,  this  lofty  prerogative  is  not  renounced  by  the 
PontifP,  or  by  his  disciples  for  him.  It  is  only,  to  use  Mons. 
Capel's  phrase,  "in  abeyance."  It  maybe  revived  at  any 
time.  Who  can  say  that  in  the  event  of  a  war  between  ul- 
tramontanism  and  Germany,  the  Pope  might  not  resort  to 
the  measure  of  absolving  the  Poman  Catholic  subjects  of 
the  emperor  from  their  allegiance  to  him  ?  The  Pope  has 
claimed  a  dejure  right  to  govern  Protestants — Lutherans — 
as  being  baptized  persons.  There  is  npthing  in  the  creed  to 
forbid  him  to  take  the  course  in  relation  to  William  which 
his  predecessor,  Pius  Y.,  took  towards  Queen  Elizabeth. 

As  to  the  question  whether  the  power  of  the  Pope  over 
kings  and  princes  is  direct  or  indirect,  Mr.  Gladstone  justly 
pronoimces  the  distinction  unimportant.  Archbishop  Man- 
ning holds  that  the  Pope  has  not  literally  a  temporal  power 
in  this  relation,  but  that  he  can  only  reach  sovereigns  and 
governments  indirectly,  by  his  spiritual  authority.  But  so 
long  as  he  is  competent  to  forbid  rulers  to  make  or  execute 
laws  which  he  does  not  approve  ;  so  long  as  he  claims  the 
right  to  annul  all  such  legislation,  and  to  excommunicate  its 
authors,  as  well  as  to  prohibit  their  subjects  from  obeying 
them,  what  boots  it  whether  this  tremendous  authority  is 
called  direct  or  indirect,  spiritual  or  temporal  ? 

5.  The  use  of  force  for  the  suppression  of  heresy.  Even 
Dr.  Manning — ^we  must  style  him  "  Cardinal  Manning  "  now 
— resents  the  imputation  to  the  Pope  and  the  church  of  a 
disposition  to  make  use  of  physical  coercion,  as  in  the  days 


138  THE   COUNCIL   OF  CONSTANCE   AND 

of  rack  and  fagot.  Yet  he  does  not  disavow  the  right  to  do 
so.  He  does  not  condemn  the  employment  of  these  fierce 
weapons  in  past  ages.  He  founds  his  disinclination  on  the 
altered  circumstances  of  the  times,  and  not  on  any  deep 
principle  of  right. 

We  have  no  disposition  to  speak  harshly  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  or  of  its  prominent  apologists.  We  must 
say,  however,  that  it  is  impossible  for  an  educated  Protes- 
tant to  read  their  defences,  and  note  their  fine  distinctions 
and  carefully-guarded  concessions,  and  not  feel  that  they  are 
the  champions  of  a  flexible,  evasive,  slippery  system,  which 
is  this  to-day  and  that  to-morrow,  but  which  at  all  times 
pursues,  with  an  unrelenting  eye,  an  end  which  can  be  secured 
only  by  robbing  men,  just  as  Mr.  Gladstone  maintains,  not 
only  of  their  mental  and  moral  liberty,  but  of  their  outward 
and  political  liberty  as  well.  Dr.  J^ewman  compares  the 
absolute  control  of  the  Pope  to  the  authority  exercised  by  a 
physician ;  as  if  the  subjection  of  a  patient  to  his  medical 
adviser  were  analogous  to  that  of  a  subject  of  the  Pope  to 
the  ruler  at  Pome.  The  cases  might  be  analogous  if  the 
patient  did  not  select  his  physician,  and  were  not  at  liberty  to 
dismiss  him  and  take  another  whenever  he  chooses  to  do  so. 

6.  Mr.  Gladstone  alleges  against  the  Papal  Church  of  to- 
day "  a  breach  with  history,"  in  two  particulars.  One  of 
these  has  reference  to  the  pledges  of  the  Poman  Catholic 
clergy  of  Great  Britain,  on  the  faith  of  which  the  Emanci- 
pation Act  and  other  liberal  measures  were  conceded  by  the 
Parliament  of  Great  Britain.  It  was  then  declared  by  the 
representatives  of  the  Catholic  Church  that  they  did  not 
hold  the  Pope  to  be  infallible,  and  admitted  no  right  on  his 
part  to  interfere,  "  directly  or  indirectly,"  w^ith  the  inde- 
pendence, sovereignty,  laws,  constitution,  or  government  of 
the  United  Kingdom.  H  the  Vatican  decrees  are  accepted, 
says  Mr.  Gladstone,  there  is  a  retreat  from  these  solemn  en- 
gagements, a  breach  with  history  which  is  closely  akin  to  a 
breach  of  faith. 


THE   COUNCIL   OF   THE    VATICAN.  139 

Again,  whatever  opinion  may  have  been  cherished  by  in- 
dividuals or  schools  of  opinion  in  the  past  in  favor  of  ponti- 
fical infallibility,  Gallicanism  has  been,  fi'om  the  days  of  the 
Council  of  Constance — not  to  speak  of  earlier  times — a  per- 
mitted and  a  powerful  type  of  Catholicism.  But  Gallican- 
ism is  now  put  under  the  ban.  Mr.  Gladstone  exposes  the 
misrepresentation  of  Manning,  who,  strangely  enough,  makes 
Gallicanism  have  its  origin  in  1682,  in  the  contest  of  Louis 
XIY.  with  the  papacy. 

7.  In  answer  to  one  of  the  main  propositions  of  Arch- 
bishop Manning,  that  Catholics  do  not  differ  from  Protes- 
tants on  this  matter  of  civil  loyalty,  since  both  acknowledge 
the  higher  law  of  conscience,  and  the  possible  occurrence  of 
cases  where  allegiance  to  the  moral  law  clashes  with  obedi- 
ence to  the  civil  magistrate,  Mr.  Gladstone  points  out  a 
marked  and  obvious  distinction.  The  Protestant  makes  his 
own  conscience  supreme ;  he  does  not  subject  his  conscience 
to  the  conscience  and  will  of  another,  and  that  other  a  for- 
eign potentate.  The  state  is  not  brought  into  peril  by  the 
doctrine  of  the  authority  of  conscience,  provided  the  indi- 
vidual acts  for  himself,  but  the  state  is  endangered  when  a 
body  of  citizens  substitute  for  their  own  consciences  the  will 
of  a  foreign  ecclesiastic ;  and  this  peril  is  not  diminished  by 
the  circumstance  that  in  making  this  surrender  they  suppose 
themselves  to  be  impelled  by  the  sense  of  right.  The  practi- 
cal fact  is  that  there  is  erected  an  hrvperium  in  iirvperio  of 
a  formidable  kind. 

Wliat  is  the  significance  of  this  controversy  ?  It  indicates 
that  the  ecclesiastical  conflict  which  disturbs  the  continent  has 
crossed  the  channel  and  reached  England.  TJltramontanism, 
with  its  new  dogma  of  Papal  infallibility,  with  its  rigid  tenets 
respecting  civil  marriage  and  secular  education,  and  its  revived 
claim  on  behalf  of  the  Pope  to  dehort  the  subjects  of  Chris- 
tian states  from  their  obedience  to  obnoxious  laws,  inevita- 
bly clashes  with  the  enlightened  sentiment  and  established 
policy  of  the  European  nations.     TJltramontanism  is  a  reac- 


140        THE   COUNCILS    OF    CONSTANCE    AND   THE   VATICAN. 

tionarj  movement,  an  endeavor  to  arrest  the  progress  of 
society  in  tlie  direction  of  freedom  and  laical  independence, 
and  to  bring  mankind  once  more  under  the  dominion  of  the 
priesthood.  This  controversy  has  political  bearings  of  much 
consequence.  The  ultramontanes  do  not  give  up  the  hope 
of  breaking  up  the  kingdom  of  Italy  and  of  restoring  his  old 
principality  to  the  Pope.  In  the  event  of  an  armed  conflict 
on  this  point,  they  would  hope  to  rally  to  their  cause  the 
sympathies  of  the  whole  Roman  Catholic  population  of 
Europe.  Mr.  Gladstone  has  not  only  sounded  a  note  of 
alarm  in  Protestant  ears,  but  he  has  forewarned  his  Roman 
Catholic  countrymen  of  the  possible  use  to  which  the  Jesuit 
leaders  may  eventually  wish  to  put  them. 


THE   POPE    AND    HOW   HE   IS    CHOSEN.  141 


THE  OFFICE   OF  THE  POPE   AND  HOW  HE  IS 
CHOSEN.  * 

The  papacy  has  been  stripped  of  the  splendid  preroga- 
tives which  inhered  in  it  in  the  middle  ages,  when  Western 
Europe  constituted  a  great  and  undivided  ecclesiastical  com- 
monwealth which  acknowledged  the  Pope  as  its  head ;  when 
such  was  the  force  of  his  authority  that  his  Interdict  could 
suspend  all  the  public  services  of  religion  in  a  nation,  silenc- 
ing the  bells  upon  the  tower  of  every  church  and  convent, 
and  compelling  the  disconsolate  to  bury  their  dead  without 
the  soothing  voice  of  prayer  ;  when  the  injunctions  of  the 
Sovereign  Pontiff  were  heard  with  awe  to  the  farthest 
limit  of  Christendom  ;  when  monarchs  were  dethroned  and 
kingdoms  given  away  at  his  bidding.  But,  although  the 
power  of  the  Pope  as  regards  political  society  is  in  abeyance, 
and  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he  has  endured  the  bitter 
humiliation  of  seeing  his  temporal  principality  wrested  from 
him,  and  a  secular  ruler  enthroned  at  his  side  in  the  Holy 
City  itself,  the  spiritual  authority  of  the  Pope  over  many 
millions  of  devoted  subjects  stiU  remains  intact,  and  has 
even  been  augmented  within  the  present  generation.  A 
vast  multitude  of  Christians  still  look  up  to  him  as  the  guide 
of  then'  consciences,  and  the  highest  earthly  authority  in  the 
regulation  of  their  conduct.  His  office  is  even  now  the  most 
august  on  earth.  Nor  is  there  any  prospect  that  it  will  soon 
pass  out  of  being.  As  far  as  external  perils  are  concerned, 
it  is  in  less  danger  than  it  was  fourteen  hundred  years  ago, 


*  Published  in  the  If.  Y.  Examiner  and  Chronicle,  January,  1878. 


'c^FTTci 


142  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  POPE 

when  Leo  the  Great  went  forth  from  Rome  to  the  camp  of 
Attila,  and  saved  the  city  from  pillage ;  or  twelve  hundred 
years  ago,  when  Gregory  III.  and  his  successors  besought 
the  help  of  the  Franks  against  the  Lombard  invaders,  who 
had  seized  on  the  northern  and  central  portions  of  Italy  ;  or 
eight  hundred  years  ago,  when  Hildebrand  was  driven  out 
of  Rome  by  the  troops  of  the  Emperor  Henry  lY.,  and  died 
in  exile ;  or  three  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago,  when  Clem- 
ent YII.  was  shut  up  in  the  Castle  of  St.  Angelo  by  a 
Lutheran  army  under  Roman  Catholic  leaders ;  or  even 
sixty-five  years  ago,  when  Pius  YII.  was  the  prisoner  of 
]^apoleon,  and  when  the  French  Revolution  had  apparently 
well-nigh  dispelled  all  reverence  for  the  papacy  in  the  rul- 
ing classes  of  the  nations  nominally  Catholic.  The  bark  of 
St.  Peter,  the  Pontiffs  have  been  accustomed  to  assert,  may 
be  tossed  upon  the  waves,  but  it  does  not  go  under ;  and 
after  a  time  the  Master  awakes,  and  the  waves  are  stilled. 
The  great  change  which  the  papacy  has  undergone  in  modem 
times  is  in  the  loss  of  its  influence  in  the  political  sphere. 
The  growth  of  religious  skepticism  in  Italy  and  France  has 
made,  to  be  sure,  a  serious  inroad  upon  the  spiritual  domin- 
ion of  the  Pontifical  See.  The  separation  of  the  Teutonic 
nations  at  the  Reformation  was  a  staggering  blow,  yet  it  did 
not  prove  a  fatal  blow,  to  the  Roman  hierarchical  suprem- 
acy. 

Pope  is  derived  iroviipapa  (in  the  Greek  Tlanra^),  signify- 
ing ^(a^zJA^r.  As  late  as  the  fifth  century,  in  the  Western 
churches,  all  bishops  were  styled  Papce.  Sidonius,  who 
was  made  bishop  of  Clermont  in  472,  calls  the  bishops  of 
Rheinis,  Aries,  Lyons  and  other  places  by  this  title.  Jer- 
ome, in  his  Epistle  to  Pammachius,  styles  Epiphanius,  Bishop 
of  Constantia  in  Cyprus,  Pojpe  /  and  this  is  not  a  solitary 
example,  in  his  writings,  of  the  same  usage.  The  designa- 
tion came  to  be  appropriated,  in  the  Eastern  church,  to  pa- 
triarchs and  abbots,  ecclesiastics  of  high  rank.  In  the 
West,  Pope  gradually  became  the  specific  and  exclusive  ap- 


AND   HOW   HE   IS   CHOSEN.  143 

pellation  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  by  a  change  in  language 
similar  to  that  which  had  taken  place  in  the  use  of  the  terms 
"  patriarch  "  and  "  bishop  ; "  for,  as  is  well  known,  "  bish- 
op "  and  "  presbyter,"  in  the  New  Testament,  are  used  in- 
discriminately for  the  same  class  of  church  officers. 

The  nature  of  the  Papal  office  is  of  more  consequence 
than  the  name.  The  Roman  Catholics  hold  that  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  is  ex  officio  the  inheritor  of  the  primacy  of  St. 
Peter ;  and  as  such,  is  the  representative  or  vicar  of  Christ, 
the  visible  head  of  the  visible  church,  the  spiritual  or  in- 
visible head  of  which  is  Christ  himself.  As  primate,  the 
Pope  is  the  high  priest,  the  regent,  and  the  doctor,  or 
teacher,  of  the  church  Catholic,  and  of  all  persons,  lay  and 
ecclesiastical,  of  whatever  rank,  who  are  embraced  in  it. 
First,  it  is  maintained  that  Christ  gave  to  Peter  this  supreme 
pastoral  superintendence  and  control  over  all  his  brethren. 
The  passages  of  Scripture  relied  upon  to  sustain  this  propo- 
sition are  chiefly  these :  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock 
I  will  build  my  church  "  (Matt.  16 :  18) ;  "  I  have  prayed  for 
thee,  that  thy  faith,  fail  not :  and  when  thou  art  converted, 
strengthen  thy  brethren  "  (Luke  22 :  32) ;  and  "  Feed  my 
sheep  " — the  injunction  thrice  repeated  (John  21 :  15  seq.). 
Secondly,  it  is  held  that,  Peter  being  the  founder  and  first 
bishop  of  the  Church  of  Rome — this  being  properly  his  See 
Apostolic — the  primacy,  by  a  divine  ordinance,  descends  in 
the  line  of  the  incumbents  of  this  bishopric.  The  preroga- 
tives of  Peter,  which  have  been  enumerated  above,  are 
transmitted  to  the  persons  duly  elected  to  the  episcopal 
office  in  the  Roman  Church.  One  of  the  gravest  of  the  con- 
troverted questions  in  the  .past  has  been  whether  other 
bishops  held  the  episcopal  office  directly  from  Christ  or 
mediately  through  the  Pope,  as  His  vicar.  It  is  the  common 
view  that  none  of  them  is  the  successor  of  any  particular 
apostle.  This  distinction  belongs  exclusively  to  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  because  the  primacy  devolves  on  him.  But  do 
they,  or  do  they  not  receive  the  episcopate  directly  from 


144  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  POPE 

Christ?  Those  disposed  to  exalt  the  papacy  have  main- 
tained that  in  the  Pope  is  centred  and  included  apostolic  and 
episcopal  authority,  which  is  said  to  flow  out  from  him  to 
other  bishops.  But  whatever  diversity  may  have  existed  on 
this  point,  the  doctrine  has  prevailed  that  the  Pope  is  the 
centre  of  sacerdotal  and  ecclesiastical  unity,  so  that  without 
him  the  church  is  dissolved,  and  hence  fellowship  with  him 
on  the  part  of  all  Christian  priests  and  people  is  indispensa- 
ble. The  most  liberal  Gallicans,  as  Gerson  and  D'Ailly,  in 
the  fifteenth  century,  the  era  of  the  Reforming  Councils,  dared 
not  dispense  with  a  Pope,  or  leave  the  office  vacant.  The 
church  without  a  Pope  was  considered  a  body  without  a 
head. 

Another  of  the  great  controverted  questions  of  the  past 
has  been  whether  an  oecumenical  council  is  an  authority 
paramount  to  the  Pope,  and  whether  its  enunciations  of  doc- 
trine are  authoritative.  That  such  is  the  fact  was  the  theory 
of  the  Gallicans,  and  this  general  view  is  assumed  and 
affirmed  by  the  Councils  of  Basle  and  Constance.  In  former 
times,  the  middle  and  moderate  theory  has  had  most  cur- 
rency, which  makes  the  concurrence  of  council  and  Pope 
necessary  to  the  validity  of  a  dogmatic  definition.  This  was 
the  doctrine  of  Hefele,  and  of  most  of  the  Catholic  theolo- 
gians of  Germany  down  to  a  recent  date.  The  ultramon- 
tane tendencies  of  the  day  have  been  potent  enough,  under 
the  auspices  of  the  present  Pontiff,  to  crush  this  opinion, 
and  the  Vatican  Council  has  pronounced  for  the  infallibility 
of  the  Pope,  in  the  sense  that  no  conciliar  ratification  of  his 
dogmatic  decrees  is  requisite.  The  sense  of  the  Vatican  de- 
finition, however,  is  often  misunderstood  and  misstated. 
Of  course,  it  is  not  meant  that  the  Popes  are  impeccable. 
The  Pope  himself  has  a  confessor,  like  the  humblest  of  his 
flock.  Poman  Catholic  writers  do  not  hesitate  to  admit  that 
there  have  been  wicked  Popes  ;  and  Dante  is  far  from  being 
alone  in  remanding  some  of  them  to  perdition.  Judas  be- 
trayed his  Master,  they  say,  and  Peter  denied  him ;  how 


AND   HOW   HE   IS   CHOSEN.  145 

can  we  expect  that  the  successors  of  the  apostles  should  be 
better  than  the  apostles  themselves  ?  Prophets  in  the  Old 
Testament  were  sometunes  cowardly  and  unfaithful.  The 
Old  Testament  church  passed  through  periods  of  darkness 
and  corruption  ;  why  not  the  church  of  the  New  Covenant  ? 
If  the  Vatican  definition  does  not  mean  that  the  Popes  are 
ex  officio  delivered  from  the  moral  infirmities  of  human 
nature,  no  more  does  it  signify  that  all  of  their  doctrinal  ut- 
terances are  necessarily  void  of  error.  But  this  is  the  im- 
port of  the  dogma,  that  the  Pope,  speaking  ex  cathedra^  or 
addressing  the  entire  church  upon  any  topic  of  religion  or 
ethics,  is  preserved  supematurally  from  error.  Speaking  in 
this  character,  not  to  an  individual  or  a  class  alone,  but  to 
the  whole  body  of  the  faithful — ^not  upon  any  subject,  as 
politics,  or  philology,  or  medicine — ^but  upon  theological  and 
ethical  doctrine,  he  is  infallible.  This  is,  of  course,  a  mo- 
mentous dogma,  and  a  very  grave  addition  to  the  articles  of 
belief  which  loyal  Catholics,  on  pain  of  perdition,  are  obliged 
to  accept.  That  the  church  cannot  err  was  the  old  belief. 
The  Holy  Spirit,  it  was  held,  abides  perpetually  in  the 
visible  body,  over  which  the  Latin  hierarchy  presides  ;  and, 
therefore,  when  the  church  collectively  speaks,  its  utter- 
ances are  free  from  error.  The  new  dogma  substitutes  for 
the  collected  episcopate,  with  the  Pope  at  their  head,  the 
Pope  alone,  who  is  thus  declared  to  be  the  organ  of  the 
church  and  of  the  Spirit. 

Besides  the  teaching  function  of  the  Pope,  he  is  endued 
with  supreme  legislative  and  judicial  powers  in  the  church. 
No  ecclesiastic  can  be  appointed  against  his  will,  and  he  can 
depose  every  ecclesiastic,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  by 
his  bare  authority.  The  promise  of  obedience  to  him  is 
solemnly  made  by  all  ecclesiastics  when  they  enter  upon 
their  offices. 

Protestants  deny  that  the  texts  of  Scripture  to  which  we 
have  referred  are  correctly  interpreted  by  Roman  Catholics. 
It  is  maintained  by  Protestants  that  the  rock  on  which  the 
7 


146  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  POPE 

church  was  founded  was  not  Peter  personally,  but  Peter  as 
confessing  Christ,  or  the  confession  made  by  the  fervent 
apostle.  They  point  to  the  fact  that  the  authority  to  remit 
sins  was  not  conferred  on  Peter  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other 
disciples  (Matt.  18 :  18),  and  that  Christ  breathed  on  the 
whole  company  of  apostles,  imparting  to  one  as  much  as  to  an- 
other the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (John  20 :  22).  They  find 
no  proof  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Peter  governed  the  other 
apostles  or  the  church,  or  that  he  exercised  any  more  actual 
authority  than  the  other  apostles.  They  deny  that  he  was 
bishop  of  the  Roman  Church.  They  deny  that  there  is 
any  evidence  that  his  primacy,  supposing  that  such  a  dis- 
tinction belonged  to  him,  was  handed  down  to  subsequent 
bishops  of  that  church.  His  precedence,  if  he  had  any, 
died  with  him.  They  deny,  likewise,  that  the  bishops  of 
Rome  in  the  first  three  centuries  claimed  for  themselves,  or 
exerted,  the  prerogatives  which  are  ascribed  by  the  Roman 
Catholic  theory  to  Peter  and  to  his  successors. 

The  historical  difficulty  here  suggested  has  been  met  in 
two  ways  by  Romish  apologists.  The  more  extreme  school 
endeavor  to  achieve  the  very  difficult  task  of  proving  that 
the  early  bishops  of  Rome  were  Popes  in  the  later  sense, 
and  were  acknowledged  as  such  by  the  church.  More 
plausible  is  the  ground  taken  by  theologians  like  De  Mais- 
tre  and  Mohler,  who  bring  to  their  aid  the  theory  of  devel- 
opment. The  papacy,  they  say,  was  founded  by  Christ, 
but  it  existed  at  first,  like  so  many  other  features  of  Chris- 
tian polity,  doctrine,  and  life,  in  the  germ.  The  idea — the 
divine  idea — ^was  gradually  realized.  The  papacy  grew  up, 
but  its  growth  was  legitimate.  It  is  the  natural,  normal,  in- 
tended outcome  of  the  seed  planted  by  the  hand  of  Christ. 
The  precedence  of  Peter  among  the  apostles,  and  the  pre- 
cedence of  Rome  among  cities  and  communities,  were  the 
divine  preparations  for  an  institution  the  foundations  of 
which  rest  on  the  express  ordinances  of  Christ,  although 
the  edifice  arose  only  by  degrees,  and  in  the  course  of  cen- 


AND    HOW    HE   IS   CHOSEN.  147 

tiiries,  to  the  full  symmetry  and  splendor  of  its  proportions. 
In  answer  to  this  hypothesis,  Protestants  have  to  say,  first, 
that  it  allows  that  the  papacy  has  no  perfectly  distinct  war- 
rant in  tlie  JS^ew  Testament,  and  had  no  concrete  existence 
in  the  primitive  church ;  and  secondly,  that  the  papacy 
arose  historically  through  the  introduction  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  mediatorial  priesthood,  a  doctrine  which  has  no  right- 
ful place  in  the  Christian  dispensation,  but  was  a  germ  of 
development  borrowed  from  Judaism. 

In  the  first  centuries,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  chosen,  like 
bishops  elsewhere,  by  the  suffrages  of  the  clergy  and  laity  of 
the  church  at  Rome,  with  the  cooperation  of  the  neighbor- 
ing bishops ;  and  the  traces  of  this  primitive  arrangement 
are  even  now  not  wholly  obliterated.  It  is  sometimes  made 
a  subject  of  complaint  that  the  primate  of  the  whole  church 
should  be  created  mainly  by  Italians ;  but  this  objection, 
like  various  other  objections,  implies  an  ignorance  or  forget- 
fulness  of  the  fact  that  it  is  as  chief  pastor  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  that  the  Pope  holds  his  dignity  and  prerogatives. 
It  belongs  to  the  Roman  Church  to  create  its  own  pastor. 
Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  gives  some  particulars  respect- 
ing the  choice  of  Cornelius  (a.d.  251)  to  the  Roman  bish- 
opric. He  says  (Ep.  55)  that  Cornelius  was  made  bishop 
" by  the  judgment  of  God  and  of  his  Christ" — that  is,  by  a 
divine  call — "  by  the  testimony  of  almost  all  the  clergy,  by 
the  suffrage  of  the  people  who  were  then  present,  and  by  the 
assembly  of  ancient  priests  and  of  good  men."  The  impor- 
tance of  the  episcopal  office  in  the  metropolis  led  the  Roman 
emperors  to  intermeddle  in  the  selection  of  the  person  to 
fill  it.  This  was  done,  also,  to  some  extent,  by  the  Gothic 
king,  Theodoric  (a.d.  493-526).  After  the  do^mfall  of  the 
East  Gothic  kingdom  in  Italy,  the  Greek  emperors  (a.d. 
553-754)  were  still  more  disposed  to  put  checks  upon  the 
unrestrained  liberty  of  the  Romans  to  make  their  own 
bishop.     The  ratification  of  the  emperor  at  Constantinople, 


148  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  POPE 

either  directly  given,  or  through  his  viceroy,  the  Exarch  at 
Ravenna,  was  necessary  to  the  validity  of  an  election.  Jus- 
tinian (a.d.  553-565)  was  as  arbitrary  in  his  treatment  of 
the  Eoman  See,  as  in  dealing  with  the  Eastern  patriarchs 
and  bishops  who  were  under  the  shadow  of  his  throne. 
After  the  rescue  of  the  papacy  from  the  threatened  supre- 
macy of  the  Lombards,  by  Charlemagne  (a.d.  774),  this 
monarch  and  his  successors  exercised  the  same  sort  of  as- 
cendancy over  the  Pope  that  they  were  accustomed  to  exer- 
cise over  the  Frank  bishops.  The  consent  of  the  Frank  ru- 
lers was  requisite  before  a  Pope-elect  could  begin  to  exercise 
his  functions.  In  the  anarchy  that  followed  the  ruin  of 
Charlemagne's  empire,  a  period  extending  to  the  middle  of 
the  eleventh  century,  the  papacy  succeeded,  to  be  sure,  in 
liberating  itself,  for  a  long  time,  from  this  exterior  control, 
but  only  to  become  a  prey  to  violent  domestic  factions, 
which  brought  the  papacy  down  to  a  lower  depth  of  moral 
degradation  than  it  has  ever  reached  before  or  since.  From 
this  condition  of  helplessness  and  infamy,  relieved  only  for 
brief  intervals  by  the  German  Othos,  it  was  delivered  by  the 
emperor,  Henry  III.,  who  entered  Italy  at  the  head  of  an 
army,  and  at  the  Synod  of  Sutri,  in  1046,  deposed  the  rival 
incumbents  of  the  sacred  office,  and  himself  elevated  three 
German  bishops  in  succession  to  the  Papal  dignity.  The 
Hildebrandian  or  refonning  party,  as  long  as  the  Italian 
factions  were  raging,  were  glad  to  avail  themselves  of  im- 
perial help ;  but  they  lost  no  time  in  seizing  the  first  oppor- 
tunity that  presented  itself  to  shake  off  transalpine  and  secu- 
lar interference  and  control  in  the  great  matter  of  filling  the 
chair  of  St.  Peter.  After  the  death  of  Henry  III.,  and 
when  Henry  TV.  was  a  child,  Pope  Nicholas  II.  (in  1059), 
by  a  decree,  devolved  the  prerogative  of  electing  the  Pope 
upon  the  cardinals. 

In  the  first  centuries  the  term  cardinal  (from  cardo,  a 
hinge)  might  be  applied  to  civil  officers  holding  permanent 
stations  under  the   Poman  government.     It  was  applied, 


AND   HOW    HE   IS   CHOSEN.  149 

also,  to  ecclesiastics  having  a  permanent  connection  with  a 
church.  The  clergy  of  the  Roman  churches,  which  all  stand 
in  close  connection  with  the  Lateran,  the  mother  of  churches, 
were  termed  cardinals.  The  presbyters  having  charge  of 
the  parishes — at  first  twenty-five,  then  twenty-eight  in  num- 
ber— into  which  Rome  was  divided,  and  the  deacons  to 
whose  care  the  poor  in  the  ecclesiastical  districts  of  the  city 
— at  first  seven,  then  fourteen  in  number — were  committed, 
were  "cardinals"  of  the  Lateran  Church.  In  the  eighth 
century,  under  Pope  Stephen  lY.,  the  seven — now  six — 
suburbicarian  bishops,  or  bishops  in  the  ancient  diocese  of 
Rome,  were  added  to  this  body  of  priests  and  deacons.  The 
number  of  the  college  of  cardinals,  however,  has  varied  from 
time  to  time.  At  one  time,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  it 
sank  to  seven.  Pope  Sixtus  Y.,  in  1586,  fiji:ed  the  number 
at  seventy,  corresponding  to  the  seventy  elders  of  Israel. 
The  college,  however,  is  seldom  full. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  College  of  Cardinals,  whether 
they  actually  reside  at  Rome  or  not,  by  whom  the  Pope  is 
elected,  are  clergy  of  the  Roman  Church.  They  comprise 
the  suffragan  bishops  of  the  vicinity,  with  presbyters  and 
deacons  of  the  Church  of  Rome ;  and  so  are  divided  into 
three  classes,  cardinal  bishops,  cardinal  priests,  and  cardinal 
deacons.  The  fifty  cardinal  priests  are  designated  by  the 
names  of  fifty  churches  in  Rome  ;  the  fourteen  cardinal 
deacons,  by  the  fourteen  deaconries.  The  cardinal  bishops 
are  of  highest  rank ;  the  cardinal  priests  and  deacons  are  on 
a  level ;  but  all  are  practically  equal  as  regards  the  choice  of 
a  Pope. 

The  constant  policy  of  the  Popes  has  been  to  keep  off 
outside  interference,  and  especially  to  defend  this  electoral 
college  from  the  undue  influence  or  coercion  of  secular  gov- 
ernments. They  have  sought  to  make  its  action  independ- 
ent and  final.  Nicholas  II.,  in  the  decree  to  which  we  have 
referred,  and  which  forms  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  the 
electoral  system,  recognized  in  very  indefinite  terms  the  im- 


150  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  POPE 

perial  pretensions.  The  cardinals — the  cardinal  bishops  at 
that  time  taking  precedence — were  to  take  the  initiative,  and 
choose  the  Pope  ;  the  next  step  was  some  indefinite  consul- 
tation with  the  emperor  ;  while  "  applause  "  of  a  choice  al- 
ready concluded  was  the  only  prerogative  left  to  the  people 
of  Rome.  The  Pope  was  to  be  selected  from  "  the  bosom 
of  the  Roman  Church,"  if  it  contained  a  fit  person  for  the 
place.  Gregory  XY.,  in  1621,  laid  down  the  rules  for  the 
organization  of  the  conclave,  and  for  its  proceedings,  which, 
with  some  modifications,  have  continued  in  force  until  the 
present  time. 

The  cardinals  are  appointed  by  the  Pope.  He  is  not 
obliged,  however,  to  divulge  the  names  of  persons  raised  to 
this  rank,  at  the  time  when  they  are  appointed.  When  the 
names  are  temporarily  withheld  they  are  styled  cardinals  in 
petto,  i.  e.,  inpectore,  or  in  the  breast.  That  is  to  say,  they 
are  hidden  in  the  Pope's  breast.  Eligibleness  to  the  cardin- 
alate  is  attached  to  no  definite  age.  In  certain  periods,  as 
is  well  known,  by  an  abuse  of  the  power  of  appointment, 
persons  in  extreme  youth  have  been  raised  to  this  office. 
Leo  X.  was  made  cardinal  at  the  age  of  fourteen,  and  in- 
vested with  the  purple  three  years  later.  Leo  X.  made 
Prince  Alfred,  of  Portugal,  cardinal  when  he  was  seven 
years  old,  stipulating,  however,  that  he  should  not  assume 
the  dignity  until  seven  years  later.  The  qualifications  ne- 
cessary in  a  cardinal  are  those  requisite  in  a  bishop.  It  is 
required  that  the  candidate  shall  be  a  legitimate  son.  He 
must  have  been  in  orders  for  at  least  a  year.  He  must  have 
neither  children  nor  grandchildren,  and  he  must  have  no 
relative  within  the  second  degree  of  canonical  kinship  in 
the  college  before  him.  The  cardinal-elect  goes  to  the  Vati- 
can, and  according  to  an  elaborate  form,  receives  the  purple 
cap.  This  may  be  sent  to  a  cardinal  residing  abroad.  At 
a  public  session  of  the  whole  body,  the  new  member  is  cere- 
moniously received,  and  clothed  with  the  red  hat.  Other 
cm-ious  forms,  as  that  of  closing  and  opening  the  mouth  of 


AND    HOW   HE   IS    CHOSEN.  151 

the  cardinal-elect  bj  the  Pope,  attend  his  inauguration,  to  his 
new  dignity. 

The  cardinals  are  princes,  as  well  as  ecclesiastics,  since  the 
right  of  electing  the  Pontiff  vests  in  them.  They  are  a  kind 
of  council,  the  business  of  the  Papal  administration  being 
mainly  distributed  among  them.  The  various  congregations 
at  Rome  are  composed  of  them,  or  are  under  their  presiden- 
cy. But  their  principal  distinction  lies  in  the  prerogative 
which  belongs  to  them,  of  choosing  the  Pope,  who,  it  is  sup- 
posed, must  be  one  of  their  own  number. 

What  a  departure  is  all  this  from  the  primitive  method 
of  electing  a  pastor  !  Clement  of  Pome,  in  his  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians,  which  was  written  in  a.d.  96  or  9Y,  says 
that  the  apostles  put  officers  in  the  churches,  and  provided 
that  their  places,  on  becoming  vacant,  should  be  filled  by 
approved  men.  The  body  of  church  members,  in  the  case 
of  a  vacancy,  decided  who  should  be  appointed,  the  remain- 
ing pastors  giving  their  voice,  but  the  power  of  acceptance 
and  of  veto  being  always  exercised  by  the  body  of  the  con- 
gregation. This  was  the  custom  at  Pome,  as  in  other 
chm-ches.  In  the  room  of  this  free  action  of  the  body  of 
church-members,  we  have  substituted  a  corporation  of  eccle- 
siastics, appointed  by  the  chief  pastor  of  the  Poman  Church, 
and  filling  his  place  with  no  action  on  the  part  of  the  Chris- 
tian laymen  of  Pome,  except  what  is  involved  in  shouting 
for  the  individual  whose  election  by  the  conclave  of  car- 
dinals is  announced  to  them. 

The  institution  known  as  the  conclave  originated  in  a  tur- 
bulent period  of  the  middle  ages,  when  it  was  thought  ex- 
pedient, in  repeated  instances,  to  catch  the  cardinals  and 
shut  them  up,  in  order  that  they  might  be  compelled  to  fill 
a  vacancy  in  the  Papal  office.  Clement  lY.  died  in  1269,  at 
Yiterbo.  The  strife  between  the  French  and  the  Italian 
factions  among  the  cardinals  prevented  the  choice  of  a  suc- 
cessor for  two  years  and  nine  months,  the  longest  interreg- 


152  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  POPE 

num  that  has  existed  in  the  whole  history  of  the  papacy. 
During  this  interval,  the  citizens  of  Yiterbo,  under  the  town 
captain,  Kanieri  Gatti,  not  only  imprisoned  the  cardinals  in 
a  palace,  but  resorted  to  the  bold  expedient  of  unroofing  the 
edifice  and  leaving  their  eminences  to  the  mercy  of  the  ele- 
ments, besides  diminishing  their  supplies  of  food.  It  was 
not,  however,  until  a  year  after  this  irreverent  proceeding 
that  an  election  was  made.  Gregory  X.,  who  was  chosen, 
was  moved,  in  consequence  of  these  disorders,  at  the  Gen- 
eral Council  at  Lyons,  held  in  1274,  to  establish  fixed  regula- 
tions for  the  proceedings  in  the  case  of  the  death  of  a  Pope ; 
and  he  may  be  considered  the  founder  of  the  conclave. 
His  rules  have  been  in  various  particulars  modified  by  his 
successors.  They  are  subject  to  modification  at  the  will  of 
the  Pontiffs.  At  the  same  time,  they  still  form  the  basis  of 
the  ecclesiastical  law  on  the  subject. 

When  the  Pope  dies,  the  cardinals  wait  for  ten  days  only 
for  the  absent  members  of  their  body  to  appear.  'No  notifi- 
cations are  sent  out  to  absentees.  They  must  come,  if  they 
come  at  all,  of  their  own  motion.  At  the  end  of  this  time, 
the  cardinals  are  to  enter  into  conclave  in  the  palace  where 
the  Pope  died.  Each  cardinal  may  now  have  two  attend- 
ants, who  are  lodged  in  two  of  the  three  small  sleeping  apart- 
ments which,  together  with  another  little  room,  constitute 
his  "  cell."  The  old  restrictions  as  to  the  supply  of  food 
are  very  much  mitigated  ;  and  communication  with  persons 
from  outside  is  not  absolutely  prohibited,  except  during  the 
time  of  actual  voting,  though  such  communication  is  not  al- 
lowed to  be  private.  No  other  business  is  permitted  in  the 
conclave  except  what  pertains  to  the  election  of  a  Pope,  un- 
less measures  have  to  be  taken  to  defend  his  territory.  Of 
course,  this  last  proviso  is  now  rendered  obsolete.  A  vote 
of  two-thirds  is  requisite  for  an  election.  Cardinals  under 
ecclesiastical  censure,  or  even  under  excommunication,  can- 
not be  excluded  from  taking  part  in  the  assembly.  All 
bargains  and  prior  agreements  are  solemnly  prohibited ;  and 


AND   HOW   HE   IS   CHOSEN.  153 

the  electors  are  bound  by  stringent  oaths  to  the  olDservance 
of  all  the  regulations  which  the  church  has  prescribed  for 
the  performance  of  their  function. 

On  the  death  of  a  Pope,  the  Cardinal  Camerlingo  (Cham- 
berlain) is  informed  of  it  at  once.  He  proceeds  to  the  room 
where  the  dead  Pope  lies,  and  strikes  his  forehead  thrice 
with  a  little  hammer,  addressing  him,  at  the  same  time,  by 
his  original  name.  Receiving  no  reply,  he  takes  from  his 
finger  "  the  ring  of  the  fisherman,"  and  breaks  it.  On  the 
tenth  day,  the  cardinals  enter  into  conclave  in  the  chambers 
which  have  been  set  apart  for  this  purpose  in  the  Vatican — 
if  the  Pope  dies  in  Rome — and  which,  in  the  interv^al,  have 
been  walled  in,  the  doors  and  the  windows,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  a  narrow  space  at  the  top  for  the  admission  of  light, 
being  closed  up  with  brick  and  mortar.  Within  the  con- 
clave everything  takes  place  by  rule,  under  ofiicial  supervi- 
sion. The  Pope  may  be  chosen  in  either  of  three  ways. 
First,  he  may  be  elected  by  acclamation — also  called  "  in- 
spiration," or  "  adoration " — when  all  the  cardinals,  gath- 
ered at  the  appointed  time  and  place,  with  one  voice  desig- 
nate some  individual  for  this  office.  Such  a  mode  of  elec- 
tion is  of  very  rare  occurrence.  Secondly,  he  may  be 
chosen  by  direct  vote.  In  this  case,  as  was  said  above,  a 
candidate  must  have  the  suffrages  of  two-thirds  of  those  who 
participate  in  the  election.  Each  cardinal  must  swear  that 
his  ballot  is  cast  for  the  one  whom  he  deems  most  fit  for  the 
office.  The  greatest  precautions  are  taken  to  prevent  fraud. 
The  ballot  is  secret ;  the  number  and  motto  of  each  cardinal, 
however,  being  recorded  on  the  ballot,  which  is  folded  and 
sealed  so  that  this  part  of  it  is  not  seen,  unless  it  becomes 
necessary  to  ascertain  by  whom  the  vote  was  cast.  In  case 
no  candidate  receives  two-thirds  of  the  ballots  cast,  any  one 
who  has  received  a  single  vote  may,  nevertheless,  be  chosen, 
if  a  sufficient  number  who  have  voted  for  other  persons 
"  accede,"  to  constitute  the  two-thirds.  This  is  a  choice  by 
"  accession,"  and  is  not  imfrequent.     Thirdly,  a  Pope  may 


164  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  POPE 

be  chosen  by  compromise.  When  it  is  found  that  the  requi- 
site number  of  votes  cannot  be  obtained  by  any  one — in 
other  words,  when  there  is  a"  dead-lock"  in  the  conclave — 
the  business  of  selection  may  be  delegated  to  a  committee  of 
the  cardinals,  by  whose  decision  the  rest  are  bound  to  abide. 
In  this  way,  the  impossibility  of  an  agreement  among  the 
electors,  and  the  calamities  of  a  long  interregnum  have,  in 
noted  instances,  been  avoided. 

Formerly,  each  of  the  great  Catholic  powers  have  had  the 
privilege  of  exercising  the  "  veto  "  upon  any  obnoxious  can- 
didate for  the  papacy.  But  this  could  be  used  but  once 
during  the  process  of  filling  a  vacancy  by  the  conclave,  and  if 
used  at  all,  was  necessarily  exerted  before  the  decisive  vote 
had  been  taken.  In  the  present  relation  of  the  papacy  to 
the  Catholic  powers,  it  is  understood  that  the  exercise  of 
the  veto,  which  is  not  considered  by  the  Papal  canonists  as 
a  right,  will  not  be  conceded. 

When  the  choice  has  been  made,  a  window  is  opened,  and 
the  announcement  of  the  result  of  the  election  is  made  to 
the  throng  of  people  without.  The  coronation  of  the  Pope, 
who  usually  receives  the  tiara  from  the  oldest  cardinal  dea- 
con, takes  place  on  the  next  Sunday  or  next  festal  day  after 
his  election.  If  a  deacon,  he  must  first  be  elevated  to  the 
priesthood  and  the  episcopate.  During  the  procession  in  St. 
Peter's,  as  a  part  of  the  coronation  ceremonies,  a  little  tow 
is  burned,  to  remind  the  Pontiff  elect  of  the  transitoriness  of 
worldly  glory.  The  enthronement  follows  the  coronation. 
The  Pope  assumes  another  name  on  his  induction  into  ofiice. 
The  first  to  do  this  was  Octavianus,  in  a.d.  956,  who  adopted 
the  name  of  John  XII.  It  has  been  suggested  by  Roman 
CathoKc  writers  even,  that  his  motive  was  to  cover  up,  as 
far  as  might  be,  the  disgrace  which  his  sins  and  crimes  had 
brought  on  his  former  name. 

Yast  results  have  sometimes  turned  on  the  action  of  the 
conclave.  A  single  illustration  may  be  given.  In  the  sum- 
mer of  1197,  Henry  III.,  a  powerful  monarch,  wore  the  im- 


AND    HOW   HE   IS   CHOSEN.  155 

perial  crown.  His  antagonist  in  the  papacy  was  an  old  man 
ninety  years  of  age,  Celestine  III.  So  unequally  were  the 
papacy  and  the  empire  matched.  On  the  28th  of  Septem- 
ber of  that  year,  the  Emperor  Henry  died.  A  few  months 
later,  on  the  8th  of  January,  1198,  Celestine  also  died.  On 
the  same  day  the  conclave  assembled.  A  number  of  votes 
were  cast  for  one  candidate  and  another ;  but  these  candi- 
dates themselves  united  in  proposing  that  Giovanni  Lotario 
Conti  should  be  the  Pope,  and  he  was  forthwith  chosen 
unanimously,  takifig  the  name  of  Innocent  III.  This  great- 
est of  the  Pontiffs  was  then  in  the  vigor  of  life,  being  only 
thirty-seven  years  old.  Frederic  II.,  who  eventually  suc- 
ceeded to  the  empire,  was  at  that  time  a  child.  In  the  Pa- 
pal chair  w^as  a  sagacious  and  energetic  statesman,  thoroughly 
in  earnest,  and  determined  to  carry  the  Papal  prerogatives 
to  the  greatest  height.  On  the  other  side,  there  was  divi- 
sion and  confusion.  Such  was  the  change  in  the  posture  of 
affairs  which  a  few  months  wrought. 

Yet  Innocent,  like  certain  other  great  Pontiffs,  was  reluc- 
tant to  take  on  him  the  burdens  and  responsibilities  of  the 
office.  Gregory  I. — Gregory  the  Great — when  he  learned 
of  his  election,  hid  himself.  He  held  out  in  his  refusal  of 
the  station  allotted  to  him  as  long  as  he  could.  Gregory  YII. 
consented,  not~  without  an  inward  struggle,  to  take  the  part 
of  leader  in  the  tremendous  conflict  with  secular  authority 
which  the  Papal  office,  in  his  judgment,  imposed  upon  him. 
Like  Calvin  afterwards  at  Geneva,  he  knew  what  a  struggle 
awaited  him.  If  Hildebrand  was  ambitious,  it  was  no  vul- 
gar ambition  that  inspired  him.  Innocent  II.,  as  long  as  he 
was  able,  withstood  the  cardinals  who  were  resolved  to  make 
him  Pope ;  and  Eugene  III.  had  to  be  dragged  out  of  his 
cell,  and  forced  to  assume  the  purple.  If  there  have  been 
ambitious  intriguers  who  have  aspired  to  this  lofty  distinc- 
tion, and  have  climbed  to  it  by  flagitious  means,  there  have 
been  others  who  have  sincerely  desired  to  shun  so  harassing 
and  responsible  a  station.     It  is  difficult  to  see  how,  in  the 


166  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  POPE 

present  circumstances,  any  one  who  values  his  own  ease  and 
comfort  can  wish  to  grasp  the  sceptre  which  the  present 
Pontiff  must  soon  lay  down. 

The  pontificate  of  Pius  IX.,  who  was  elected  Pope  as  the 
successor  of  Gregory  XYI.,  on  the  16th  of  June,  1846,  is 
drawing  to  a  close.  Victor  Emanuel  is  no  more,  and  at 
the  death  of  the  present  Pontiff,  when  it  shall  occur,  the  two 
most  prominent  actors  in  the  drama  of  recent  Italian  history, 
so  fraught  with  momentous  events,  will  have  passed  off  the 
stage. 

There  are  two  principal  eras  in  the  long  reign  of  Pius 
IX.,  and  two  principal  sides  to  his  activity.  In  the  first 
place,  he  has  played  a  conspicuous  part  in  political  affairs. 
The  temporal  principality  which  the  Popes  had  held  for  a 
thousand  years  has  been  torn  from  his  grasp.  Italy  has  be- 
come a  united  kingdom  under  the  house  of  Savoy,  and  Rome 
has  become  its  capital.  There  are  many  who  recall  the  start- 
ling impression  made  by  the  liberal  measures  of  Pius  IX.,  on 
his  first  accession  to  power,  and  the  enthusiasm  among  the 
friends  of  Italian  liberty  which  w^as  kindled  in  those  days  of 
hope.  The  intolerable  misgovernment  in  the  Papal  States 
imperatively  required  a  radical  change  in  the  system  of  in- 
ternal administration,  and  Pius  IX.  undertook  to  organize  a 
constitutional  monarchy  in  which  laymen  should  have  a  large 
share  of  power.  The  reduction  of  taxes,  the  liberation  of 
political  prisoners,  the  charters  given  to  railway  and  tele- 
graph companies,  the  improvement  of  agriculture,  the  pat- 
ronage of  education,  the  reform  of  ecclesiastical  institu- 
tions, the  relaxation  of  restraints  upon  the  press,  and  other 
measures  consonant  in  spirit  with  these,  seemed  to  usher  in 
an  utterly  new  period  of  liberty  and  prosperity  in  the  Ro- 
man kingdom.  But  the  Pope  had  still  larger  aims.  Italy 
was  groaning  under  the  tyranny  of  Austria,  and  of  the  petty 
sovereigns  who  were  under  Austrian  influence.  That  Italy 
should  be  emancipated  from  oppression,  and  combine  into  a 


AND   HOW   HE   IS   CHOSEN.  157 

confederation  of  which  the  Pope  should  be  the  head — ^be- 
coming thus  once  more  a  nation  among  the  nations — ^was  an- 
other design  which  Pius  IX.  cherished,  and  which  he  hoped 
to  realize.  All  these  fair  dreams  and  bright  beginnings  were 
shattered  in  pieces.  The  revolutions  of  1848  were  attended 
with  consequences  which  the  Pope  had  not  foreseen.  A  tem- 
pest arose  which  he  could  neither  quell  nor  control.  On  the 
one  hand,  there  was  Austria,  which  had  endeavored  to  pre- 
vent his  election  to  the  papacy,  which  had  done  what  it 
could  to  baffle  his  projects  of  reform  and  his  concessions  to 
liberalism,  and  which  stood  in  mortal  hostility  to  everything 
that  could  be  called  Italian  liberty.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  were  the  Radicals,  the  republicans  of  the  Mazzini 
type,  who  demanded  a  democratic  system,  and  were  deter- 
mined to  wrest  all  secular  authority  from  ecclesiastics.  The 
Pope  found  himself  in  a  place  where  two  currents  met. 
The  liberals  were  bent  on  driving  him  to  a  more  advanced 
position  than  he  was  prepared  to  take  up,  and  to  involve  him 
in  an  open  war  with  Austria.     The  winds  were  let  loose ; 

"Una  Eurusqne  Notusque  ruunt  creberque  procellia 
Af  ricus,  et  vastos  volvunt  ad  libera  fluctus. " 

How  a  man  of  greater  talents  and  sagacity  might  have  suc- 
ceeded in  preserving  himself  and  his  cause  in  such  a  storm, 
it  is  not  for  us  to  say.  On  the  24th  of  August  he  fled  from 
Rome  to  Gaeta.  The  French  occupation  of  Rome  followed. 
Thenceforward,  the  idea  of  liberal  and  partly  lay  government 
for  Rome  was  abandoned  by  the  Pope.  The  success  of 
France,  in  alliance  with  Sardinia,  in  the  war  with  Austria, 
paved  the  way  for  the  extension  of  the  rule  of  Piedmont 
over  all  Italy.  The  Franco-German  war  disabled  Napoleon 
III.  from  longer  hindering  the  consummation  of  the  move- 
ment which  he  had  helped  to  initiate.  The  Papal  States 
were  absorbed  in  the  Italian  kingdom,  and  Victor  Emanuel 
took  possession  of  the  Quirinal. 

The  restoration  of  the  Italian  nationality  under  the  auspices 


158  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  POPE 

of  a  limited  monarchy  and  a  native  dynasty,  is  one  of  the 
most  gratifying  events  which  have  occurred  in  our  time. 
The  charm  wliich  Italy  must  always  possess  for  the  histori- 
cal student  is  far  from  being  the  only  source  of  the  interest 
which  we  cannot  but  feel  in  the  fortunes  of  this  beautiful 
land.  This  charm  is  indeed  great.  What  a  part  have  Rome 
and  Italy  played  for  the  last  twenty-five  centuries  in  the  his- 
tory of  mankind !  What  a  glory  rests  upon  this  birthplace 
and  hearthstone  of  the  civilization  of  Western  •  Europe, 
whence  law,  and  literature,  and  culture  have  flowed  out  in  a 
quickening  stream  upon  so  many  nations  of  Christendom ! 
But  this  interest  derived  from  memorable  ages  of  history 
Italy  shares  with  other  lands — especially  with  Greece  and 
with  Palestine.  Athens  and  Jerusalem  are  cities  which,  in 
some  relations,  awaken  a  deeper  feeling  than  Rome  itself. 
But  the  Italy  of  to-day  is  full  of  a  vigorous  life.  The 
Italians  are  a  highly  intellectual  people,  l^o  statesman  of 
modern  times  has  surpassed  in  ability,  perhaps  none  has 
equalled  in  ability.  Count  Cavour.  The  public  men  of  Italy 
are  versed  in  political  science  and  political  economy.  ]^o- 
where  else  are  there  to  be  found  persons  more  competent  to 
deal  with  great  political  and  social  problems.  The  reinstate- 
ment of  Italy  as  a  power  among  the  nations  is  adapted  to 
give  the  deepest  satisfaction  to  thoughtful  and  good  men. 
If  it  has  not  taken  place  in  the  way  which  the  Pope  would 
have  chosen,  if  the  loss  of  his  temporalities  has  called  out 
from  him  bitter  reproaches,  still  the  unification  of  his  coun- 
try is  really  one  of  the  most  beneficent  events  which  signal- 
ize the  annals  of  his  pontificate. 

Not  less  momentous  have  been  the  events  of  this  pontificate 
within  the  spiritual  sphere.  In  1854  Pius  IX.  invited  the 
Roman  Catholic  bishops  in  all  the  countries  to  resort  to  Rome, 
and  with  their  support  and  consent,  though  without  the  decree 
of  a  council,  he  promulgated  the  dogma  of  the  Immaculate 
Conception  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  This  act  was  contrary  to 
the  advice  and  judgment  of  many  of  the  most  discreet  theo- 


AND    now    HE   IS    CHOSEN.  159 

logians  and  ecclesiastics  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  It 
decided  authoritatively  a  point  of  divinity  on  which  theo- 
logical opinion  from  the  days  of  Augustine  had  been  di- 
vided. Great  names  in  the  past  could  be  appealed  to  in 
opposition  to  the  new  definition.  'No  doubt  it  was  repug- 
nant to  the  previous  opinions  and  wishes  of  multitudes  from 
whom  no  public  expression  in  opposition  to  it  was  heard. 
Moreover,  it  was  the  making  of  a  dogma  by  the  Pope's  bare 
authority,  with  no  concurrent  action  by  the  episcopate  gath- 
ered in  an  oecumenical  body.  In  this  light  it  was  seen  to 
be  a  stretch  of  pontifical  prerogatives  of  a  highly  portentous 
character.  The  influence  of  the  Jesuit  Society  over  the 
Papal  mind  was  supposed  to  be  further  disclosed  when,  on 
the  8th  of  December,  1864,  the  celebrated  Syllabus  appeared, 
in  which  were  condemned  a  long  list  of  alleged  errors, 
which  appeared  to  include  the  liberty  of  the  press,  secular 
education,  freedom  of  religious  belief  and  worship,  and 
various  other  characteristic  elements  of  popular  liberty  and 
modern  civilization.  "Whether  the  propositions  of  the  Syl- 
labus were  spoken  ex  cathedra,  and  addressed  to  the  entire 
church,  or  not,  is  a  question  on  which  Poman  Catholic  au- 
thorities are  not  agreed.  Dr.  l^ewman,  in  his  controversy 
with  Mr.  Gladstone,  maintained  that  they  are  not.  Cer- 
tainly, the  assumption  that  they  are  absolutely  binding  on 
the  conscience  of  all  Catholics  seriously  embarrasses  the  de- 
fence of  the  Poman  Catholic  system  in  all  free  countries. 
In  1869-70,  there  followed  the  great  ecclesiastical  event  of 
this  pontificate,  the  Vatican  Council,  by  which  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  Pope  was  decreed.  Another  question  of  the 
highest  moment  was  then^  taken  from  the  category  of  dis- 
puted and  disputable  beliefs,  and  a  decision  of  it  was  incor- 
porated among  the  Articles  of  Faith.  It  is  difficult  to  say 
how  far  these  extraordinary  measures,  which  have  modified 
in  important  respects  the  Poman  Catholic  Church,  and  have 
set  up  new  barriers  in  the  way  of  compromise  and  union 
with  opposing  systems,   emanated  from  the  Pope's  own 


160  THE   POPE    AND    HOW    HE    IS    CHOSEN. 

natural  proclivities,  and  how  far  they  were  inspired  by  the 
peculiar  influences  by  which  he  has  been  surrounded.  At 
the  very  moment  when  the  temporal  monarchy  fell,  and  the 
Papal  influence  in  the  civil  affairs  of  nations  was  at  the 
lowest  ebb,  the  spiritual  monarchy  was  carried  to  the  highest 
pitch  of  exaltation.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  gen- 
erally acquiesced  in  this  remarkable  change.  Men,  like  Bish- 
op Hefele,  who  had  just  before  demonstrated  the  fallibility 
of  Pope  Honorius,  accept  the  new  definition.  The  Old 
Catholic  movement  was  not  without  a  political  importance  ; 
able  and  cultivated  men  were  enlisted  in  it ;  but  apparently 
it  has  no  strength  in  the  mass  of  the  Catholic  population 
even  in  Germany.  It  has  no  deep  root  among  the  people. 
Pere  Hyacinthe  stands  by  himself,  refusing  to  sanction  the 
new  dogma,  and  by  an  exercise  of  private  judgment  decid- 
ing that  the  action  of  the  Vatican  Council  is  destitute  of 
03cumenical  authority,  at  the  same  time  that  his  dissatisfac- 
tion with  the  Protestant  system  of  belief  and  worship  keeps 
him  from  placing  himself  within  the  pale  of  any  of  the 
Protestant  religious  bodies. 


161 


THE   RELATION  OF  PROTESTANTISM   AND  OF 
ROMANISM  TO   MODERN   CIVILIZATION.* 

In  this  discussion  I  shall  take  "  civilization  "  in  the  broad 
sense,  and  include  under  the  term  all  that  enters  into  the 
improvement  of  the  individual  and  of  society — all  the  ele- 
ments that  unite  to  constitute  an  advanced  stage  of  human 
progress.  Whenever  we  contemplate  the  growth  of  civili- 
zation, we  should  not' confine  our  attention  to  the  organized 
institutions,  political  or  ecclesiastical,  which  minister  to  the 
welfare  of  mankind,  but  should  take  into  view,  also,  what- 
ever influences  spring  from  the  individual  and  contribute  to 
his  well-being.  In  other  words,  the  term  "  civilization  "  in- 
cludes culture.  .The  inventions  and  discoveries  that  lighten 
the  burden  of  labor  and  conduce  to  material  comfort,  the 
safeguards  of  law,  refined  sentiments,  literature,  art,  and  sci- 
ence, the  amenities  of  social  intercourse — all  that  raises  man 
above  the  rude  and  narrow  life  of  the  barbarian  is  embraced 
in  this  comprehensive  term.  In  defining  civilization,  how- 
ever, it  has  been  justly  said  that  no  nation  can  be  considered 
highly  civilized  in  which  a  small  class  is  possessed  of  the 
benefits  of  scholarship,  the  charm  of  polished  manners,  and 
the  conveniences  and  luxuries  derived  from  wealth,  at  the 
same  time  that  the  bulk  of  the  population  are  sunk  in  pov- 
erty and  ignorance,  perhaps  degraded  to  a  condition  of  serf- 
dom. Nor  can  that  nation  be  deemed  civilized,  in  the  fuU 
idea  of  the  word,  where  the  fine  arts  flourish  while  agricul- 
ture and  the  mechanic  arts  are  in  a  low  state.     Civilization 


*  A  Paper  read  at  the  meeting  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance  in  New  York, 
October,  1873. 


162        THE  RELATION  OF  PROTESTANTISM  AND 

should  involve  something  like  an  impartial  or  proportionate 
development  of  the  capacities  of  man  and  a  fair  distribution 
of  social  advantages.  It  should  likewise  carry  within  it  the 
germ  of  further  and  indefinite  progress. 

We  are  absolved  from  inquiring,  in  this  place,  what  sort 
of  a  civilization  could  exist,  and  how  long  it  were  possible 
for  civilization  to  continue,  without  any  aid  from  religion. 
Whoever  believes  in  the  teachings  of  Christ  needs  no  argu- 
ment to  convince  him  that  Christianity  is  essential  to  the  en- 
during life  of  all  that  is  excellent  and  lioble  in  the  products 
of  human  activity.  "  Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth."  It  is 
clear  that  Christianity,  from  the  moment  when  it  first 
gained  a  foothold  in  the  Roman  Empire  down  to  the  pres- 
ent time,  has  never  ceased  to  exert  a  profound  influence  up- 
on society.  Of  the  several  agencies  which  have  chiefly  con- 
spired to  determine  the  course  and  the  character  of  modem 
history,  Christianity  and  the  church  are  first  in  importance. 
Attribute  whatever  weight  we  may  to  the  legacy  that  was 
transmitted  from  the  nations  of  antiquity,  or  to  the  pecu- 
liar genius  of  their  barbarian  conquerors,  every  discerning 
student  must  allow  to  Christianity  the  predominant  part  in 
moulding  the  history  of  the  European  communities  now  on 
the  stage  of  action. 

No  enlightened  Protestant,  in  our  day,  will  be  inclined  to 
disparage  the  wholesome  influence  which  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic Church  may  still  exert  in  certain  places  and  over  certain 
classes  of  people.  We  are  not  disposed  to  undervalue  the 
benefits  which  that  church,  in  the  middle  ages,  when  it  was 
the  only  organized  form  of  Christianity  in  Western  Europe, 
conferred  on  society.  We  are  even  quite  willing  to  concede 
that  the  papacy  itself,  the  centralized  system  of  rule,  which 
has  been  the  fountain  of  incalculable  evils,  was  providentially 
made  productive  of  important  advantages  during  the  period 
when  ignorance  and  brute  force  prevailed,  and  when  anarchy 
and  violence  constituted  the  main  peril  to  which  civilization 
was  exposed.     Let  us  thankfully  acknowledge  the  debt  that 


OF   EOMANISM   TO    MODERN   CIVILIZATION.  163 

is  due  to  the  mediaeval  church  for  preserving  from  utter  de- 
struction the  remains  of  ancient  literature  and  art,  for  train- 
ing the  minds  of  undisciplined  men,  and  imparting  to  them 
what  knowledge  had  outlived  the  wreck  of  ancient  power 
and  culture,  and  for  curbing  the  passions  and  softening  the 
manners  of  rude  peoples.  Christianity  in  the  mediaeval 
church  existed  in  a  corrupt  form,  but  its  life  was  not  extinct, 
and  it  operated  as  a  leaven,  according  to  the  promise  of  its 
Author-  Our  attention  is  to  be  directed  to  more  recent 
times.  We  have  to  compare  the  influence  of  Komanism 
with  that  of  Protestantism,  as  that  influence  is  seen  in  the 
course  of  the  last  three  centuries,  and  as  it  is  deducible  from 
the  nature  of  the  respective  systems. 

There  is  one  point  of  contrast  between  the  two  systems 
which  deserves  to  be  placed  in  the  foreground  of  our  inquiry. 
The  Roman  Catholic  system  is  the  rule  of  society  by  a  sacer- 
dotal class.  This  is  a  fundamental  characteristic  of  that 
system.  The  guidance  of  the  conscience  of  individuals,  and 
of  the  policy  of  nations,  so  far  as  their  policy  may  be  thought 
to  touch  the  province  of  morals  and  religion,  is  relegated  to 
a  body  of  priests,  or,  according  to  the  recent  Vatican  Coun- 
cil, to  their  head.  The  authority  to  decide  upon  the  ques- 
tions of  highest  moment  resides  in  this  body  of  ecclesiastics. 
It  is  not,  indeed,  like  those  hereditary  priesthoods  which  are 
separated  by  an  impassible  barrier  from  other  orders  of  men, 
and  which  are  found,  as  an  established  aristocracy,  in  certain 
oriental  religions.  E^evertheless,  it  is  a  limited  class,  ad- 
mitting to  its  ranks  none  whom  it  chooses  to  exclude,  and 
assuming  the  exalted  prerogative  of  pronouncing  infallibly 
upon  questions  of  truth  and  duty,  and  of  conveying  or  with- 
holding the  blessings  of  salvation.  Protestantism  denied 
this  prerogative.  It  broke  down  the  wall  of  separation  be- 
tween priest  and  layman.  It  accorded  to  the  laity  the  full 
right  to  determine  for  themselves  those  questions  over  which 
the  clergy  had  claimed  an  exclusive  jurisdiction.  It  declared 
that  the  heavenly  good  offered  in  the  Gospel  is  accessible  to 


164  THE   RELATION    OF    PROTESTANTISM    AND 

the  humblest  soul,  without  the  intervention  o£  a  mediatorial 
priesthood.  The  emancipation  of  the  laitj  from  clerical  rule 
is  one  of  the  prime  characteristics  of  the  Reformation. 

1.  Protestantism,  as  compared  with  the  opposite  system, 
sets  free  and  stimulates  the  energy,  intellectual  and  moral, 
of  the  individual,  and  thus  augments  the  forces  of  which 
civilization  is  the  product.  The  progress  of  civilization,  in 
the  long  course  of  history,  is  marked  by  the  growing  respect 
paid  to  the  rights  of  the  individual,  and  the  ampler  room 
afforded  for  the  unfolding  of  his  powers,  and  for  the  realiz- 
ing of  his  aspirations.  There  was  something  imposing  in 
those  huge  despotisms — Egypt,  Assyria,  Babylon,  Persia — 
in  which  a  multitude  of  human  beings  were  welded  together 
imder  an  absolute  master.  Such  empires  were  an  advance 
upon  a  primitive  state  of  things,  where  every  man's  hand 
was  against  his  neighbor.  Yet  they  were  a  crude  form  of 
crystallization  ;  and  they  were  intrinsically  weak.  The  little 
cities  of  Greece,  with  their  freer  political  life,  and  the  larger 
scope  which  they  allowed  for  the  activity  and  the  culture  of 
the  individual — communities  of  citizens — proved  more  than 
a  match  for  the  colossal  might  of  the  East.  Among  the 
Greeks  and  Romans,  however,  although  governments  of  law 
had  supplanted  naked  force,  the  state  was  supreme,  and  to 
the  state  the  individual  must  yield  an  exclusive  allegiance. 
It  was  a  great  gain  when  the  Christian  church  arose,  and 
when  the  individual  became  conscious  of  an  allegiance  of  the 
soul  to  a  higher  kingdom — an  allegiance  which  did  not  sup- 
ersede his  loyalty  to  the  civil  authority,  but  limited  while  it 
sanctioned  this  obligation.  But  the  church  itself  at  length 
erected  a  supremacy  over  the  individual,  inconsistent  with 
the  free  action  of  reason  and  conscience,  and  even  stretched 
that  supremacy  so  far  as  to  dwarf  and  overshadow  civil  so- 
ciety. It  reared  a  theocracy,  and  subjected  everything  to  its 
unlimited  sway.  The  Reformation  gave  back  to  the  indi- 
vidual his  proper  autonomy.  The  result  is  a  self-respect,  an 
intellectual  activity,  a  development  of  inventive  capacity, 


OF    KOMANISM   TO   MODERN   CIVILIZATION.  165 

and  of  energy  of  character,  which  give  rise  to  such  achieve- 
ments in  science,  in  the  field  of  political  action,  and  in  every 
work  where  self-reliance  and  personal  force  are  called  for,  as 
would  be  impossible  under  the  opposite  system.  In  the 
period  immediately  following  the  Reformation,  signal  proofs 
were  afforded  of  this  truth.  The  little  States  of  Holland, 
for  example,  proved  their  ability  to  cope  with  the  Spanish 
Empire,  to  gain  their  independence,  and  to  acquire  an  opu- 
lence and  a  culture  which  recalled  the  best  days  of  the 
Grecian  republics.  They  beat  back  their  invaders  from  their 
soil,  and  sent  forth  their  victorious  navies  upon  every  sea, 
while  at  home  they  were  educating  the  common  people, 
fostering  science  and  learning,  and  building  up  imiversities 
famous  throughout  Europe.  England,  in  the  age  of  Eliza- 
beth, proved  that  the  native  vigor  of  her  people  was  re-en- 
forced in  a  remarkable  degree  by  the  stimulus  derived  from 
the  peculiar  genius  of  the  Protestant  religion.  It  was  the 
period  when  she  was  acquiring  her  naval  ascendancy ;  the 
period,  likewise,  of  Shakspeare,  Bacon,  and  Raleigh.  Who 
can  doubt  that  the  United  States  of  America  are — not  in- 
deed wholly,  but  in  great  part — indebted  to  their  position, 
as  contrasted  with  that  of  Mexico  and  the  political  communi- 
ties of  South  America,  to  this  expansion  of  the  power  of 
the  individual,  which  is  the  uniform  and  legitimate  fruit  of 
Protestant  principles  ? 

2.  The  spirit  of  Protestantism  favors  universal  education. 
The  lay  Christian,  who  is  to  read  and  interpret  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  to  take  part  in  the  administration  of  government 
in  the  church,  must  not  be  an  illiterate  person.  Ivnowledge, 
mental  enlightenment,  under  the  Protestant  system,  are  in- 
dispensable. The  weight  of  personal  responsibility  for  the 
culture  of  his  intellectual  and  spiritual  nature,  which  rests 
on  every  individual,  makes  education  a  matter  of  universal 
concern.  Far  more  has  been  done  in  Protestant  than  in 
Roman  Catholic  countries  for  the  instruction  of  the  whole 
people.     It  is  enough  to  refer  to  the  common-school  system 


166  THE   RELATION    OF    PROTESTANTISM   AND 

of  Holland,  and  of  New  England,  and  to  Protestant  Ger- 
many, to  show  how  natural  it  is  for  the  disciples  of  the 
Reformation  to  provide  for  this  great  interest  of  society. 

The  free  circulation  of  the  Bible  in  Protestant  lands  has 
disseminated  an  instrument  of  intellectual,  as  well  as  of  re- 
ligious, improvement,  the  good  effect  of  which  is  immeasura- 
ble. As  a  repository  of  history,  biography,  poetry,  ethics,  as 
well  as  a  monitor  to  the  conscience  and  a  guide  to  heaven, 
the  Bible  has  exerted  an  influence  on  the  common  mind,  in 
all  Protestant  nations,  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  exag- 
gerate. The  practice  of  interpreting  the  Bible  and  of  ex- 
ploring its  pages  for  fresh  truth  affords  a  mental  discipline 
of  a  very  high  order.  How  often  have  the  Scriptures  car- 
ried into  the  cottage  of  the  peasant  a  breadth  and  refinement 
of  intellect  which  otherwise  would  never  have  existed,  and 
which  no  agency  employed  by  the  Poman  Catholic  system, 
in  relation  to  the  same  social  class,  has  ever  been  able  to 
engender ! 

3.  That  Protestantism  should  be  more  friendly  to  civil 
and  religious  liberty  than  the  Poman  Catholic  system  would 
seem  to  follow  unavoidably  from  the  nature  of  the  two 
forms  of  faith.  Protestantism  involves,  as  a  vital  element, 
an  assertion  of  personal  rights  with  respect  to  religion,  the 
highest  concern  of  man.  Moreover,  Protestantism  casts  off 
the  yoke  of  priestly  rule,  and  puts  ecclesiastical  government, 
in  due  measure,  into  the  hands  of  the  laity.  As  we  have 
already  said,  it  is  a  revolt  of  the  laity  against  a  usurped 
ecclesiastical  authority. 

The  Church  of  Pome  teaches  men  that  their  first  and 
most  binding  duty  is  to  bow  with  unquestioning  docility  and ' 
obedience  to  their  Heaven-appointed  superiors.  How  is  it 
possible  that  Protestantism  should  not  foster  a  habit  of  mind 
which  is  incompatible  with  a  patient  endurance  of  tyranny 
at  the  hands  of  the  civil  power  ?  How  can  Protestantism, 
inspiring  a  lively  sense  of  personal  rights,  fail  to  bring  with 
it,  eventually  at  least,  a  corresponding  respect  for  the  rights 


OF   KOMANISM   TO    MODERN   CIVILIZATION.  167 

of  others,  and  a  disposition  to  secure  their  rights  in  forms  of 
government  and  in  legislation  ?  How  can  men  who  are  ac- 
customed to  judge  for  themselves  and  act  independently  in 
church  affairs  manifest  a  slavish  spirit  in  the  political 
sphere?  On  the  contrary,  the  habit  of  mind  which  the 
Roman  Catholic  nurture  tends  to  beget  leads  to  servility  in 
the  subject  toward  the  ruler,  as  long  as  an  alliance  is  kept 
up  between  sovereign  and  priest.  It  is  true  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  can  accommodate  itself  to  any  of  the  various  types 
of  political  society.  Her  doctors  have  at  times  preached  an 
extreme  theory  of  popular  rights  and  of  the  sovereignty  of 
the  people.  While  the  state  is  subordinate  to  the  church, 
any  form  of  government  may  be  tolerated  ;  and  there  may 
be  an  interest  on  the  part  of  the  priesthood  in  inculcating 
political  theories  which  operate,  in  their  judgment,  to  weaken 
the  obligations  of  loyalty  toward  the  civil  magistrate,  and  to 
exalt,  by  contrast,  the  divine  authority  of  the  church.  When 
the  civil  magistracy  presumes  to  exercise  prerogatives,  or  to 
ordain  measures,  which  are  deemed  hurtful  to  the  ecclesias- 
tical interest,  a  radical  doctrine  of  revolution,  even  a  doctrine 
of  tyrannicide,  has  been  heard  from  the  pulpits  of  the  most 
conservative  of  religious  bodies. 

Generally  speaking,  however,  the  Church  of  Rome  is  the 
natural  ally  and  supporter  of  arbitrary  principles  of  govern- 
ment. The  prevailing  sentiment,  the  instinctive  feeling,  in 
that  church,  is  that  the  body  of  the  people  are  incapable  of 
self -guidance,  and  that  to  give  them  the  reins  in  civil  affairs 
would  imperil  the  stability  of  ecclesiastical  control.  To  this 
reasoning  it  is  often  replied  by  advocates  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  system  that  Protestantism  opens  a  door  to  bound- 
less tyranny  by  leaving  the  temporal  power  without  any  check 
from  the  ecclesiastical.  The  state,  it  is  said,  proves  omni- 
potent ;  the  civil  magistrate  is  delivered  from  the  whole- 
some dread  of  ecclesiastical  censure,  and  is  left  free  to  exer- 
cise all  kinds  of  tyranny,  without  the  powerful  restraint  to 
which  he  was  subject  under  the  mediaeval  system.     He  may 


168        THE  RELATION  OF  PROTESTANTISM  AND 

even  violate  the  rights  of  conscience  with  impunity.  The 
state,  it  is  sometimes  said,  when  released  from  its  subordi- 
nate relation  to  the  church,  is  a  godless  institution.  It  be- 
comes, like  the  pagan  states  of  antiquity,  absolute  in  the 
•province  of  religion  as  in  secular  affairs,  and  an  irresistible 
engine  of  oppression.  It  must  be  admitted  that  Protestant 
rulers  have  been  guilty  of  tyranny ;  that,  in  many  instances, 
they  cannot  be  cleared  of  the  charge  of  unwarrantably  inter- 
fering with  the  rights  of  conscience,  and  of  attempting  to  gov- 
ern the  belief  and  regulate  the  forms  of  worship  of  their  sub- 
jects, in  a  manner  destructive  of  true  liberty.  The  question 
is,  whether  these  instances  of  misgovernment  are  the  proper 
fruit  of  the  Protestant  spirit,  or  something  at  variance  with  it, 
and  therefore  an  evil  of  a  temporary  and  exceptional  character. 

The  imputation  that  the  state  as  constituted  under  Prot- 
estantism is  heathen  depends  on  the  false  assumption  that 
the  church,  and  the  priesthood  as  established  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  system,  are  identical,  or  so  nearly  identical  that  one 
cannot  subsist  without  the  other.  It  is  assumed  that  when 
the  supervision  and  control  which  the  Church  of  Rome  as- 
pires to  exercise  over  the  civil  authority  is  shaken  off,  noth- 
ing is  left  but  an  unchristian  or  antichristian  institution. 
The«f  act  that  a  layman  can  be  as  good  a  Christian  as  a  priest 
is  overlooked.  The  Christian  laity  who  make  up  a  common- 
wealth, and  the  Christian  magistrates  who  are  set  over 
them,  are  quite  as  able  to  discern,  and  quite  as  likely  to  re- 
spect personal  rights,  and  to  act  for  the  common  weal,  as  if 
they  were  subject  to  an  organized  priesthood. 

Since  the  Reformation,  a  layman  has  been  the  head  of  the 
English  Church  and  State,  and  civil  magistrates  in  England 
have  borne  a  part  in  ecclesiastical  government.  Without 
entering  into  the  question  of  the  righteousness  or  expediency 
of  establishments,  or  broaching  any  of  the  controverted 
topics  connected  with  this  subject,  we  simply  assert  here 
that  the  civil  government  of  England  is  not  to  be  branded 
as  unchristian  or  antichristian  on  account  of  this  arrange- 


OF   ROMANISM    TO    MODERN    CIVILIZATION.  169 

ment.  As  far  as  the  administration  of  pubKc  affairs  in  that 
country  has  been  characterized  by  justice  and  by  a  regard 
for  the  well-being  of  all  orders  of  people,  the  government 
has  been  Christian — as  truly  Christian,  to  say  the  least,  as  if 
the  supremacy  had  been  virtually  lodged  with  the  Pope,  or 
with  an  aristocracy  of  priests. 

History  verifies  the  proposition  that  Protestantism  is  fav- 
orable to  civil  and  religious  freedom,  and  thus  promotes  the 
attainment  of  the  multiplied  advantages  which  freedom 
brings  in  its  train.  The  long  and  successful  struggle  for  in- 
dependence in  the  ^Netherlands,  the  conflict  which  estab- 
lished English  liberty  against  the  despotic  influence  of  the 
House  of  Stuart,  the  growth  and  establishment  of  the  Re- 
public of  the  United  States,  are  events  so  intimately  con- 
nected with  Protestantism  and  so  dependent  upon  it,  that 
we  may  point  to  them  as  monuments  of  the  true  spirit  and 
tendency  of  the  reformed  religion.  That  religious  persecu- 
tion has  darkened  the  annals  of  the  Protestant  faith,  and 
that  the  earliest  leaders  in  the  Reformation  failed  to  recog- 
nize distinctly  the  principle  of  liberty  of  conscience,  must  be 
admitted.  But  Protestantism,  as  is  claimed,  at  the  present 
day,  both  by  its  friends  and  foes,  was  illogical,  inconsistent 
with  its  own  genius  and  principles,  whenever  it  attempted 
to  coerce  conscience  by  punishing  religious  dissent  with  the 
sword  and  the  fagot.  Protestants  illustrate  the  real  charac- 
ter and  tendency  of  their  system  by  deploring  whatever  acts 
of  religious  persecution  the  predecessors  who  bore  their 
name  were  guilty  of,  and  by  the  open  and  sincere  advocacy 
of  religious  liberty.  Liberty  of  thought,  and  freedom  of 
speech  and  of  the  press,  however  restricted  they  may  have 
been  by  Protestants  in  times  past,  it  is  the  tendency  of 
Protestantism  to  uphold.  It  is  more  and  more  recognized 
that  freedom  in  the  investigation  of  truth,  and  in  the  publi- 
cation of  opinions,  is  required  by  the  true  principles  of  the 
Reformation. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  dogma  of  persecution  has  never 


170  THE   BELATION   OF    PROTESTANTISM   AND 

been  authoritatively  disavowed  by  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Who  has  ever  done  penance  for  St.  Bartholomew's  day  and 
the  burning  of  IIuss  ?  Even  at  present  this  hateful  dogma 
is  boldly  professed  by  the  organs  of  the  ultramontane  party, 
which  is  now  in  the  ascendant.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how 
these  doctrines  can  be  given  up  by  a  church  which  attributes 
to  every  one  of  the  long  line  of  Pontiffs  infallibility  on  ques- 
tions of  morals.  In  recent  times  the  doctrine  of  "  liberty  of 
conscience  "  and  of  worship  has  been  branded  by  Pius  IX., 
in  an  address  to  all  bishops — branded,  therefore,  ex  cathedra 
— as  an  error  to  be  abhorred  and  to  be  shunned  as  the  con- 
tagion of  a  pestilence.  The  recent  dogma  of  the  Council  of 
the  Vatican  involves  a  formidable  attack  upon  civil  liberty, 
^his  new  article  of  belief  subjects  all  civil  legislation  to  the 
moral  criticism  of  the  Pope  of  Rome,  and  binds  every  mem- 
ber of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  whether  ruler  or  sub- 
ject, to  submit  to  his  decision.  Xo  limit  is  set  to  the  power 
of  the  priest  to  uitermeddle  with  the  governments  that  ac- 
knowledge his  jurisdiction. 

4.  Protestantism  has  bestowed  a  great  boon  upon  civili- 
zation in  supplanting  the  ascetic  type  of  religion.  Christi- 
anity came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfill.  It  was  not  to  su- 
persede any  one  of  the  normal  activities,  or  to  proscribe  any 
of  the  legitimate  products  of  human  exertion.  It  was  to 
mingle  in  the  earthly  pursuits  of  mankind,  a  renovating  and 
purifying  influence.  Family  life,  letters,  art,  science,  amuse- 
ment, trade,  and'  commerce  were  to  suffer  no  blight,  but 
were  rather  to  experience  a  quickening  and,  at  the  same 
time,  an  elevating  power  from  contact  with  the  Gospel. 
Christ  bade  his  followers  not  to  retreat  from  the  world,  but 
to  stay  in  it  and  transform  it.  The  kingdom  of  God  on 
earth  was  to  draw  within  it  all  that  is  pure  and  admirable 
in  the  infinitely  diversified  works  and  achievements  of  the 
natural  man.  It  was  not  to  be  a  ghostly  realm  of  devotees, 
but  a  society  of  men  and  women,  not  indifferent  to  the  labors 
and  pleasures  that  pertain  to  this  life,  but  infusing  into  all 


OF    ROMANISM   TO    MODERN   CIVILIZATION.  171 

things  a  spirit  of  religious  consecration.  The  ascetic  type  of 
religion  interposes  a  gulf  between  religion  and  the  business 
of  the  world,  between  things  natui-al  and  supernatural.  The 
creation  of  a  separate  priesthood,  who  are  cut  off  from 
family  life  and  from  the  ordinary  relations  of  society,  exem- 
plifies the  ascetic  tendency,  which  appears  more  or  less  dis- 
tinctly throughout  the  Roman  Catholic  system.  The  effect 
of  the  compulsory  rule  of  celibacy  is  to  attach  a  stigma  to 
the  institution  of  marriage  and  to  the  domestic  relations. 
These  relations  are  held  to  involve  an  inferior  condition  of 
sanctity.  Apart  from  all  the  other  evils  which  are  connected 
with  the  law  of  celibacy,  it  strikes  a  blow  at  the  sacredness 
of  an  institution  on  which  the  interests  of  civilization  essen- 
tially depend.  But  the  ascetic  spirit,  the  unauthorized  di- 
vorce of  things  sacred  and  secular,  penetrates  much  further. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  in  history  that  the  rise  of  com- 
merce helped  to  midermine  the  authority  of  the  clergy,  and 
was  one  of  the  potent  instruments  in  educating  the  Euro- 
pean mind  for  the  revolt  of  Protestantism.  Commerce,  it 
is  true,  produced  a  keenness  and  sagacity  of  intellect,  and 
led  to  an  activity  of  social  movement  and  intercourse,  which 
tended  to  break  the  yoke  of  superstition.  Municipalities  of 
busy  merchants  soon  began  to  chafe  under  the  sway  of  ec- 
clesiastics. Independently,  however,  of  these  peculiar  ef- 
fects of  trade,  there  was  a  secret  but  growing  consciousness 
that  great  industrial  enterprises  and  secular  activity  do  not 
find  any  link  of  connection  with  the  ascetic  type  of  religion. 
They  may  get  from  it  a  bare  toleration,  but  they  must  look 
elsewhere  for  a  sanction  and  a  baptism. 

5.  The  Protestant  religion  keeps  alive  in  the  nations  that 
adopt  it  the  spirit  of  progress.  There  may  exist  a  high  de- 
gree of  civilization  in  certain  respects,  but  a  civilization 
which  has  ceased  to  expand  through  forces  inherent  in  itself. 
China  is  an  example.  There  may  be  a  richer  and  more 
complex  development  which  yet  culminates,  and,  thence- 
forward, either  remains  stationary,  or,  which  is  more  likely 


172  THE    RELATION    OF    PROTESTANTISM   AND 

to  occur,  becomes  degenerate  and  goes  backward.  The  civi- 
lization of  the  ancient  Roman  empire  is  a  signal  case  of 
such  an  arrest  of  progress  and  of  such  a  decadence.  The 
spirit  of  progress,  the  fresh  and  unexhausted  energy  and 
hopefulness,  with  the  consequent  rapid  growth  in  material 
and  intellectual  achievements  which  distinguish  the  Protes- 
tant nations,  are  due,  not  to  characteristics  of  race  alone, 
nor  to  incidental  advantages  of  any  kind,  but,  in  a  great  de- 
gree, to  their  religion.  There  is  a  disposition  to  look  for- 
ward as  well  as  backward,  to  expect  a  future  greater  than 
the  past,  and  to  believe  in  the  practicableness  of  carrying 
improvement  to  heights  heretofore  unattained.  France  is 
a  prosperous  and  highly  civilized  nation ;  but  of  all  coun- 
tries nominally  Eoman  Catholic,  France  is  the  one  in  which 
the  Church  of  Eome  has  had  the  feeblest  sway,  and  the  one 
most  alive  to  the  influences  wliich  Protestantism  and  the 
Protestant  civilization  of  other  European  nations  have  set  in 
motion.  The  effect  of  the  reactionary  Catholicism  that  fol- 
lowed the  Reformation  upon  the  nations  of  Southern  Eu- 
rope was  deadening.  In  the  decay  of  the  Renaissance, 
music,  painting,  and  poetry  revived,  in  the  ferment  of  relig- 
ious enthusiasm  excited  by  the  Catholic  reaction ;  but  the 
intellectual  vigor  of  Italy  and  Spain  beneath  the  iron  tread 
of  the  Inquisition  was  soon  crushed.  The  history  of  these 
naturally  gifted  peoples,  subjected  to  the  stifling  atmosphere 
of  ecclesiastical  tyranny,  is  a  convincing  illustration  of  the 
fatal  effect  of  such  a  system.  The  present  aspect  of  South 
America  and  Mexico,  when  compared  with  the  American 
communities  which  have  been  reared  on  Protestant  founda- 
tions, impressively  exhibits  the  same  thing. 

Roman  Catholic  polemics  maintain  that  Protestantism  is 
responsible  for  the  skepticism  and  unbelief  that  prevail  so 
extensively  among  Christian  nations.  They  assert  that  there 
has  arisen  in  the  wake  of  Protestantism  a  spirit  of  irrelig- 
ion  which  threatens  to  subvert  the  social  fabric.    The  causes 


OF    ROMANISM   TO    MODERN    CIVILIZATION.  173 

of  this  evil,  however,  do  not  lie  at  the  door  of  Protestant- 
ism. The  free  inquiry  that  had  developed  in  Europe  in 
connection  with  the  revival  of  learning  could  not  be  smoth- 
ered by  mere  authority.  The  earnest  religious  feeling  which 
the  Reformation  at  the  outset  brought  with  it  counteracted 
the  tendencies  to  unbelief,  for  a  time,  at  least ;  and  it  was 
only  w^hen  Protestantism  departed  from  its  own  principles, 
and  acted  upon  the  maxims  of  its  adversary,  at  the  same  time 
losing  the  warmth  of  religious  life  so  conspicuous  at  the  be- 
ginning, that  infidelity  had  a  free  course.  The  ideas  which 
Plutarch  long  ago  embodied  in  his  treatise  on  superstition 
and  unbelief  are  well  founded.  They  are  two  extremes, 
each  of  which  begets  the  other.  Kot  only  may  the  artificial 
faith  which  leads  to  superstitious  practices,  and  drives  its 
devotees  to  fanaticism,  at  length  spend  its  force,  and  move 
the  same  devotees  to  cast  off  the  restraints  of  religion ;  but 
the  spectacle  of  superstition,  also,  repels  more  sober  and 
courageous  minds  from  all  faith  and  worship.  Such  has 
been  the  notorious  effect  of  the  superstitious  ceremonies  and 
austerities  of  the  Poman  Catholic  system,  both  in  the  age 
of  the  Renaissance  and  in  our  own  day.  Religion  conies  to 
be  identified,  in  the  opinions  of  men,  with  tenets  and  ob- 
servances which  are  repugnant;  to  reason  and  common  sense ; 
and  hence  truth  and  error  are  thrown  overboard  at  once. 

Disgusted  with  the  follies  which  pass  under  the  name  of 
religion,  and  attract  the  reverence  of  the  ignorant,  men 
make  shipwreck  of  faith  altogether.  The  same  baleful  in- 
fluence ensues  upon  the  attempt  to  stretch  the  principle  of 
authority  beyond  the  due  limit.  It  is  like  the  effect  of  ex- 
cessive restraint  in  the  family.  A  revolt  is  the  consequence 
wherever  there  is  a  failure  to  repress  mental  activity  and  to 
enslave  the  will.  The  subjugation  of  the  intelligence  which 
the  Roman  Catholic  system  carries  with  it  as  an  essential 
ingredient  compels  a  mutiny  which  is  very  likely  not  to  stop 
with  the  rejection  of  usurped  authority.  There  is  a  general 
source  of  unbelief  which  is  independent  of  the  influence  of 


174  THE   RELATION    OF   PROTESTANTISM   AND 

any  particular  form  of  religion.  Rationalism  lias  been  cor- 
rectly described  as  the  fruit  of  the  understanding  stepping 
beyond  its  sphere,  and  supplanting  the  normal  action  of 
the  moral  and  religious  nature.  It  is  due  to  a  one-sided, 
exclusive,  and  narrow  activity  of  a  single  function  of  the 
intellect,  at  the  expense  of  conscience  and  the  intuitive 
power. 

Such,  for  example,  was  the  character  of  that  skepticism 
which  the  Sophists  encouraged,  and  which  Socrates,  appeal- 
ing directly  to  the  immediate,  ineradicable  convictions  of 
the  soul,  did  so  much  to  overthrow.  When  the  free  and  ac- 
countable nature  of  the  soul,  and  the  aspirations  and  presenti- 
ments, as  profound  as  they  are  natural,  of  the  spirit  of  man, 
are  flippantly  set  aside  to  make  room  for  something  called 
"  science,"  which  is  converted  by  its  votaries  into  a  fetich, 
infidelity  is  the  inevitable  consequence.  There  is  nothing 
in  Protestant  principles,  rightly  understood,  to  warrant  or 
to  induce  such  a  procedure.  Looking  at  the  matter  histori- 
cally, we  find  that,  in  the  age  prior  to  the  Reformation,  un- 
belief was  most  rife  in  Italy,  the  ancient  centre  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  hierarchy.  In  recent  times,  skepticism  is  no- 
where more  prevalent  than  among  the  higher,  cultivated 
classes  in  Roman  Catholic  countries,  where  the  doctrines  of 
that  religion  have  been  perpetually  taught,  and  where  its 
ritual  has  been  celebrated  vnth  most  pomp. 

To  the  relation  of  Protestantism  and  Romanism  to  spe- 
cial evils  that  afflict  our  modern  civilization,  it  is  hardly 
possible  within  the  space  given  to  this  Paper  to  allude.  War 
is  still  a  terrible  scourge  of  nations.  It  is  obvious  that  the 
power  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  as  an  organized  body,  to 
avert  war,  even  between  countries  owning  its  authority, 
amounts  to  nothing.  It  has  been  reserved  for  two  English- 
speaking  nations,  professing  the  Protestant  faith,  to  furnish, 
as  they  have  lately  done,  an  impressive  proof  of  what  may 
be  accomplished  by  the  peaceful  method  of  arbitration. 
The  church  of  old  favored  the  emancipation  of  slaves ;  but 


OF    ROMANISM    TO    MODERN    CIVILIZATION.  175 

slavery  was  abolished  in  the  United  States  with  little  or  no 
help  from  the  ecclesiastics  of  the  Roman  Church. 

In  the  disposition  to  minister  to  poverty  and  to  the  va- 
rious forms  of  physical  distress,  Roman  Catholics,  be  it  said 
to  their  honor,  vie  with  Protestant  Christians.  But,  this 
may  be  claimed  for  Protestantism,  that  its  disciples  are 
more  zealous  to  devise  the  means  of  prevention,  to  explore 
these  great  evils  to  their  sources,  and  then  to  apply  radical  and 
permanent  remedies.  Political  economy  and  social  science, 
although  still  immature,  flourish  chiefly  under  the  auspices  of 
Protestant  Christianity.  There  are  questions,  of  which  the 
"  labor  question,"  as  it  is  called,  is  one  of  the  most  promi- 
nent, with  which  neither  church  can  be  said  to  have  fully 
grappled.  But  Protestantism  has  a  better  promise  of  con- 
tributing to  the  solution  of  these  grave  and  portentous  prob- 
lems than  the  opposite  system  ;  for  the  laborer  has  no  real 
quarrel  with  the  Protestant  religion.  The  hostility  of  the 
laboring  class  to  a  priestly  system  may  take  the  form  of  a 
hatred  to  religion  itself ;  but  better  teaching  and  a  true 
spirit  of  philanthropy  may  give  them  the  needed  light. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  at  present  engaged  in  the 
hopeless  struggle  to  uphold  in  the  midst  of  modern  society 
the  religious  ideas  and  customs  of  the  middle  ages.  A 
dictatorial  attitude  toward  the  civil  authority,  the  manage- 
ment of  education  by  ecclesiastics,  an  appeal  to  the  senses 
by  a  gorgeous  ritual,  an  exorbitant  demand  upon  the  cred- 
ulity of  mankind  by  unverified  miracles  and  prodigies,  an 
attempt  to  revive  pilgrimages  and  other  obsolete  or  obsoles- 
cent superstitions,  an  increased  devotion  to  the  Virgin  Mary, 
which  borders  on  idolatry — such  are  some  of  the  character- 
istics of  this  movement.  It  is  the  endeavor  to  reinstate  or 
maintain  a  type  of  civilization  on  which  history  has  pro- 
nounced a  final  verdict. 


176     THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHUKCH  OF  ENGLAND 


THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 
TO  THE  OTHER  PROTESTANT  CHURCHES.* 

Certain  events  connected  with  the  recent  conference  of 
the  Evangelical  Alliance  in  this  country  have  brought  up 
anew  for  discussion  the  attitude  of  the  Church  of  England, 
at  present  and  in  the  past,  towards  the  other  Protestant 
churches.  It  is  well  known  that  there  is  now,  and  long  has 
been,  a  party  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  who  have  refused  to 
hold  communion  with  other  Protestant  bodies,  for  the  rea- 
son that  these  discard  the  episcopal  polity,  and  that  their 
ministers  are  not  ordained  by  bishops.  This  party,  which 
goes  by  the  name  of  the  High  Church,  is  composed  of  two 
subdivisions.  The  one  class  is  made  up  of  those  who  carry 
their  views  of  doctrine  and  their  notions  of  worship  to  the 
verge  of  Romanism,  and  look  with  more  or  less  yearning 
towards  the  Greek  and  Latin  churches,  whose  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation  is  regarded  with  less  aversion  than  is  felt 
towards  the  prevailing  opinions  of  Protestants  respecting 
the  sacrament.  The  other  class  are  hostile  to  Rome,  and  to 
the  ritualism  that  copies  her  ceremonies,  but  maintain  the 
exclusive  sanctity  of  episcopal  ordination,  and,  therefore, 
stand  aloof  from  the  other  churches  of  the  Reformation. 
The  Church  of  England,  with  its  offshoots  and  branches,  is, 
in  their  system,  the  one  true  church,  with  which  alone  it  is 
lawful  to  have  ecclesiastical  communion.  All  other  churches 
are  shut  out  of  ecclesiastical  fellowship,  either  as  being  non- 
episcopal,  or,  like  Rome,  as  being  corrupt. 

Now  there  is  a  class  of  writers  of  the  High  Church  party 

*  An  Article  in  The  New-Englander  for  January,  1874. 


TO    THE    OTHEE    PEOTESTANT    CHUECHES.  177 

who  seek  to  convey  the  impression,  sometimes  by  direct  as- 
sertion, and  sometimes  by  more  indirect  means,  that  the 
Churcli  of  England,  in  the  first  centmy  after  the  Reforma- 
tion, or  in  the  period  prior  to  Laud  and  to  the  act  of  uni- 
formity under  Charles  II.,  professed  the  theories  which  they 
now  profess,  and  stood  in  the  isolated  and  exclusive  position 
in  which  their  party,  since  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth 
century  have  striven  to  hold  her.  We  do  not  mean  to  im- 
pute this  flagrant  perversion  of  historical  truth  to  all  writers 
of  the  High  Church  school.  There  are  candid  scholars 
among  them,  like  Keble,  who  discern  and  acknowledge  facts, 
even  when  they  militate  against  a  party  interest.  Much 
less  do  we  charge  this  kind  of  misrepresentation  upon  the 
writers  of  the  Episcopal  Church  generally.  Historical  stu- 
dents who  pursue  these  investigations  without  being  warped 
by  theological  prejudice,  are  generally  well  agreed  on  the 
facts  of  the  English  Reformation.  Hallam,  Macaulay,  and 
the  other  standard  historians,  state  with  substantial  correct- 
ness the  transformations  which  took  place  between  the  time 
of  Cranmer  and  the  eras  of  Laud  and  Sheldon.  Authors 
who  are  strongly  averse  to  Puritanism,  and  warmly  attached 
to  the  episcopal  side  in  the  controversy  between  Churchman 
and  Puritan,  but  who  are  too  honest  to  be  misled,  or  to  mis- 
lead their  readers,  through  partisan  feeling,  are  equally  com- 
mendable. The  following  passage  from  Lathbury's  History 
of  English  Episcopacy,  the  work  of  a  writer  of  this  stamp, 
will  illustrate  our  remark,  and,  at  the  same  time,  present 
some  of  the  facts,  which  we  shall  establish  in  the  course  of 
this  Article : — 

"The  Eng-lisli  Reformers  did  not  contend  for  any  system  of  govern- 
ment or  discipline  in  the  church,  as  being ^'wre  divino  ;  things  indifferent, 
as  ceremonies  and  clerical  habits,  were  left  to  the  civil  magistrates.  Nor 
did  they  refuse  to  recognize  the  validity  of  ordination  in  those  foreign 
churches  that  had  renounced  episcopacy."  "The  question  of  church 
government  was  vehemently  agitated  at  this  period  [the  reign  of  Eliza- 
beth] .  The  Reformers  were  agreed  that  no  precise  form  was  laid  down 
in  the  New  Testament ;  but  when  the  Puritans  became  divided  into  two 


178     THE  EELATTON  OF  THE  CnURCII  OF  ENGLAND 

parties,  the  Presbyterian  party  advocated  the  divine  right  of  their  sys- 
tem. Cranmer  and  all  the  Reformers  asserted  that  the  form  of  govern- 
ment was  left  to  the  civil  magistrate  to  determine,  according  to  times 
and  circumstances.  The  prelates  of  this  reign  maintained  the  same  views  ; 
but  like  the  earlier  Reformers,  they  considered  episcopacy,  as  retained 
in  the  English  Church,  to  have  been  the  apostolic  practice.  They  did  not, 
however,  consider  any  mode  of  government  essential  to  the  constitution 
of  the  church  ;  hence  the  validity  of  ordination  as  exercised  in  those  re- 
formed churches  where  episcopacy  was  not  retained,  was  admitted.  By 
an  act  passed  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  this  reign,  the  ordinations  of  for- 
eign reformed  churches  were  declared  valid,  and  their  ministers  were  ca- 
pable of  enjoying  preferment  on  receiving  a  license  from  the  bishop.* 
Many  who  had  received  ordination  abroad  were  allowed  to  exercise  their 
ministry  in  the  Church  of  England,  provided  they  conformed.  Travers, 
Whittingham,  Cartwright,  and  many  others  had  received  no  other,  and 
their  ordination  was  never  questioned,  f  At  a  subsequent  period  this 
practice  was  denounced  ;  and  in  1662,  it  was  ordered  that  no  minister 
should  exercise  his  office  in  the  Church  of  England  who  had  not  received 
episcopal  ordination.  It  appears  that  the  Reformers  did  not  contend  for 
the  superiority  of  the  office  of  bishop  as  a  distinct  order  from  the  priest- 
hood, but  as  different  only  in  degree.  Nor  did  any  member  of  the  Church  of 
England  claim  this  distinction,  till  the  year  1588,  when  Bancroft,  in  his 
celebrated  sermon  at  Paul's  Cross,  asserted  it."  "Laud's  notions  on  the 
subject  of  church  government  were  at  variance  with  those  adopted  by  many 
of  his  predecessors,  who,  until  the  time  of  Bancroft,  never  claimed  a  divine 
right  for  the  government  of  the  English  Church  ;  and  even  Bancroft  ad- 
mitted the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination  ;  for  when  it  was  suggested 
in  1610,  that  the  Scotch  bishops  elect  should  be  ordained  presbyters,  he 
opposed  on  the  ground  that  ordination  by  presbyters  was  valid."  X 

We  quote  the  passages,  not  because  we  approve  every 
sentence,  but  as,  on  the  whole,  a  just  exhibition  of  the  facts, 
and  as  showing  how  a  fair-minded  churchman,  who  is,  also, 
a  thorough  student,  is  capable  of  writing. 

The  following  extract  is  from  a  writer  of  another  type  of 
theology  and  of  churchmanship,  but  an  accomplished  his- 
torical scholar,  Dean  Stanley : — 

"  Whether  from  policy  or  necessity,  the  whole  settlement  of  modern 
Scottish  Episcopacy  was  far  more  Presbyterian,  far  less  Episcopal  and 

*  Strype's  Annals,  524. 

f  [That  is,  until  the  new  spirit,  described  in  the  next  sentence,  arose.] 

X  Lathbury,  History  oftheEnylish  Episcopacy^  pp.  19,  63,  170. 


TO   THE   OTHER   PROTESTANT   CFJURCUES.  179 

Catholic,  than  in  any  country  in  Europe.  Doubtless  this  was  partly  oc- 
casioned by  the  fact,  that  in  England  itself  the  sentiment  toward  Presby- 
terian churches  was  far  more  generous  and  comprehensive  in  the  century 
that  followed  the  Reformation  than  it  was  in  that  which  followed  the 
Kestoration.  The  English  Articles  are  so  expressed  as  to  include  the  re- 
recognition  of  Presbvterian  ministers.  The  first  English  Act  of  Unifor- 
mity was  passed  with  the  expressed  view  of  securing  their  services  to 
the  English  Church.  The  first  English  Reformers,  and  the  statesmen  of 
Elizabeth,  would  have  been  astonished  at  any  claim  of  exclusive  sanc- 
tity for  the  Episcopal  order."  *  "  It  was  not  Knox,  but  Andrew  Melville, 
who  introduced  into  Scotland  the  divine  right  of  Presbytery,  the  sister- 
dogma  of  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy,  which  Bancroft  and  Laud  intro- 
duced into  England."  "  It  is  this  (the  Church  of  Scotland]  for  which 
every  English  churchman  is  asked  to  pray,  by  the  canons  of  the  English 
Convocation,  which  enjoins  that  prayers  are  to  be  offered  up  'for  Christ's 
Holy  Catholic  Church,  that  is,  for  the  whole  congregation  of  Christians 
dispersed  throughout  the  whole  world,  especially  for  the  Churches  of 
England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland.'  *  There  can  be  no  doubt,'  says  the  can- 
did and  accurate  annalist  of  Scottish  Episcopacy,  '  that  the  framers  of 
this  have  meant  to  acknowledge  the  northern  ecclesiastical  establishment 
at  that  time  Presbyterian,  as  a  Christian  Church-' "f  "  The  very  first 
declaration  which  the  sovereign  makes — taking  precedence  even  of  the 
recognition  of  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  English  Church  and  nation, 
which  are  postponed  till  the  day  of  the  coronation — is  that  in  which,  on 
the  day  of  the  accession,  the  sovereign  declares  that  he  or  she  will  main- 
tain inviolate  and  intact  the  Church  of  Scotland."  ''  In  the  Act  of  Union 
itself,  which  prescribes  this  declaration,  the  same  securities  are  through- 
out exacted  for  the  Church  of  Scotland  as  were  exacted  for  the  Church  of 
England  ;  and  it  is  on  record  that,  when  that  act  was  passed,  and  some 
questions  arose  amongst  the  peers  as  to  the  propriety  of  so  complete  a 
recognition  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the  then  primate  of  all  England, 
the  '  old  rock,'  as  he  was  called,  Archbishop  Tenison,  rose,  and  said  with 
a  weight  which  carried  all  objections  before  it,  *  the  iiarrow  notions  of  all 
churches  have  been  their  ruin.  I  believe  that  the  Church  of  Scotland 
though  not  so  perfect  as  ours,  is  as  true  a  Prot^tant  church  as  the 
Church  of  England.'  "  X 


*  See  this  well  drawn  out  in  Lord  3Iacaulay*8  correspondence  with  the 
Bishop  of  Exeter ;  and  in  Principal  Tulloch's  Article  on  the  English  and 
Scottish  Churches,  in  the  Contemporary  Review,  December,  1871. 

f  See  the  discussions  of  the  canons  of  1603,  in  Grub  [Ecd.  Hist,  of  Scot- 
land], ii,282. 

J  Carstairs'  Stat€  Papers,  739,  760.  [Stanley's  Lectures  on  t7i€  Eigtory 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  pp.  47,  66,  67.     (Am.  ed. )] 


180     THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 

The  drift  of  the  representations  of  secular  historians  of 
the  highest  credit,  may  be  learned  from  the  following  pas- 
sage from  Hallam,  himself  a  churchman,  and  an  authority 
of  the  first  rank  upon  questions  of  legal  and  constitutional 
history : — 

* '  The  system  pursued  by  Bancroft  and  his  imitators,  Bishops  Neyle  and 
Laud,  with  the  approbation  of  the  king,  far  opposed  to  the  healing  coun- 
sels of  Burleigh  and  Bacon,  was  just  such  as  low-bom  and  little-minded 
men,  raised  to  power  by  fortune's  caprice,  are  ever  found  to  pursue." 
' '  They  began  by  preaching  the  divine  right,  as  it  is  called,  or  absolute 
indispensability,  of  episcopacy ;  a  doctrine  of  which  the  first  traces,  as  I 
apprehend,  are  found  about  the  end  of  Elizabeth's  reign.  They  insisted 
on  the  necessity  of  episcopal  succession  regularly  derived  from  the  apos- 
tles. They  drew  an  inference  from  this  tenet,  that  ordinations  by  pres- 
byters were  in  all  cases  null ;  and  as  this  affected  all  the  Reformed  churches 
in  Europe  except  their  own,  the  Lutherans  not  having  preserved  the  suc- 
cession of  their  bishops,  while  the  Calvinists  had  altogether  abolished 
that  order,  thej'^  began  to  speak  of  them,  not  as  brethren  of  the  same 
faith,  united  in  the  same  cause,  and  distinguished  only  by  differences 
little  more  material  than  those  of  political  commonwealths  (which  had 
been  the  language  of  the  Church  of  England  ever  since  the  Reform atioYi), 
but  as  aliens  to  whom  they  were  not  at  all  related,  and  schismatics  with 
whom  they  held  no  communion ;  nay,  as  wanting  the  very  essence  of  a 
Christian  society."  In  the  foot-note,  Hallam  adds  that  ''it  is  evident, 
by  some  passages  in  Strype,  attentively  considered,  that  natives  regularly 
ordained  abroad,  in  the  Presbyterian  churches,  were  admitted  to  hold  pre- 
ferment in  England  ;  the  first  bishop  who  objected  to  them  seems  to  have 
been  Aylraer.  Instances,  however,  of  foreigners  holding  preferment 
without  any  reordination  may  be  found  down  to  the  civil  wars." — Annals 
of  the  Reformation,  ii.,  522,  and  Appendix,  116;  Life  of  Grindal,  271  ; 
Collier,  ii.,  594;  Neal,  i.,  258.* 

Since  the  late  meeting  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  Bishop 
Cummins,  in  a  letter  to  the  ]}^ew  York  Tribune,  referred  to 
tlie  fact  that  Presbyterian  ministers,  in  the  period  following 
the  Reformation,  had  been  admitted  to  parishes  in  England 
without  reordination ;  and  he  referred,  among  his  authori- 
ties, to  Prof.  Fisher's  work  on  the  Eef ormation.  The  state- 
ment was  denied  by  the  Eev.   Dr.  Drumm,  in  communi- 

♦  Const  History  (Harpers'  Am.  ed.),  p.  226. 


TO    THE   OTHKR   PROTESTANT    CHURCHES.  181 

cations  to  the  same  journal.  Prof.  Fisher  published  two 
letters  in  the  Tribune  in  proof  of  the  assertion  ;  and  these 
letters  we  propose  to  transfer  to  our  pages,  partly  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  them  a  more  permanent  form,  and  partly 
in  order  to  illustrate  their  contents  by  further  proofs  and 
observations,  such  as  could  not  well  find  place  in  the  columns 
of  a  daily  newspaper.  As  several  topics  belonging  to  the 
same  general  subject  are  handled  in  these  letters,  and  will 
be  considered  in  the  pages  which  follow,  we  set  forth  dis- 
tinctly the  main  propositions,  which  we  conceive  to  be  as 
capable  of  being  established  as  any  facts  in  the  ecclesiastical 
history  of  England  : 

1.  The  first  and  second  generation  of  English  Reformers, 
Cranmer  and  his  associates.  Jewel  and  his  contemporaries, 
did  not  hold  the^W^  divino^  or  exclusive,  theory  of  episco- 
pacy. 

2.  The  Church  of  England,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  was 
in  full  communion  with  the  other  Protestant  churches  of 
Europe. 

3.  The  greatest  divines  in  the  Church  of  England  in  the 
seventeenth  century  agreed  with  Hooker  in  acknowledging 
the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination,  and  in  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  foreign  Protestant  churches.  This  was  true  of 
Ussher,  Hall,  and  Stillingfleet,  and  of  others  of  hardly  less 
distinction. 

4.  The  fellowship  with  the  foreign  churches  on  the  part 
of  the  English  Reformers  was  not  owing  to  forbearance  in 
them,  but  to  the  common  opinion  that  each  nation,  or 
church,  could  shape  its  own  polity,  and  that  episcopacy 
might  be  adopted  or  rejected  as  each  church  or  nation 
should  see  fit  to  determine. 

5.  Notwithstanding  the  changes  in  the  Prayer-Book  and 
in  the  law  of  England,  at  the  Restoration,  the  Church  of 
England  has  never,  by  law  or  s^modal  action,  discredited  the 
validity  of  the  ordination  practiced  in  other  Protestant 
bodies. 


182     THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 

We  print  below  the  first  letter,  in  the  form  in  which  it 
was  published  in  the  Tribune^  but  with  the  addition  of  a  few 
marginal  notes. 

Sir  :  In  two  communications  which  have  lately  appeared  in  your  jour- 
nal, I  am  mentioned  among  writers  who  have  stated  that,  for  a  consider- 
able period  after  the  Reformation,  persons  who  had  only  received  non- 
episcopal  ordination  were  admitted  to  parishes  in  the  English  Church,  no 
objection  being  made  to  the  validity  of  their  orders.  As  the  correctness 
of  this  assertion  is  directly  impugned  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Drumm,  and  as  the 
question  is  a  historical  one  of  some  interest,  and  a  question,  too,  that 
need  not  provoke  sectarian  asperity,  I  beg  leave  to  offer  a  vindication  of 
the  truth  of  the  statement  which  your  correspondent  has  called  in  ques- 
tion. 

The  statement  is  usually  made  as  one  illustration  of  the  fact  that  the 
founders  of  the  Anglican  Church  in  the  reigns  of  Henry  VIII.,  Edward 
VI.,  and  Elizabeth — Cranmer  and  his  associates,  Jewel  and  the  Eliza- 
bethan bishops  and  divines  of  his  time— did  not  hold  to  the  j^^re  divino 
theory  of  episcopacy.  That  is  to  say,  they  did  not  consider  bishops, 
meaning  a  class  elevated  above  presbyters,  essential  to  the  existence  of  a 
church,  and  they  did  not  regard  Episcopal  ordination  as  indispensable  to 
the  exercise  of  the  functions  and  prerogatives  of  the  Christian  ministry. 
On  the  contrary,  they  looked  upon  the  Protestant  ministers  on  the  Con- 
tinent in  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  in  the  Reformed  Churches  in  Switzer- 
land, France,  and  Holland,  as  on  a  perfect  equality  with  themselves  with 
regard  to  clerical  rights  and  qualifications.  Differences  arose  among  the 
Protestant  churches  on  the  subject  of  the  Eucharist,  but  as  to  contro- 
versy about  episcopacy,  in  that  age  there  was  none.  When  Cranmer 
called  eminent  divines  from  the  churches  on  the  Continent  to  help  him 
compose  the  formularies  of  the  Anglican  Church,  and  to  train  the  minis- 
ters of  England  at  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  this  was  not  an  exceptional  act, 
but  in  keeping  with  his  avowed  principles  and  constant  practice.  No  one 
who  is  acquainted  with  Cranmer's  opinions,  can  suppose  that  the  circum- 
stance that  Martyr  and  Bucer  had  once  taken  orders  in  the  Roman  Church 
had  a  feather's  weight  in  determining  him  to  invite  them  to  England^ 
any  more  than  a  like  fact  influenced  him  in  the  case  of  John  Knox,  who 
was  made  Chaplain-in-ordinary  to  Edward  VI.,  was  commissioned  for  sev- 
eral years  as  a  preacher  in  the  north  of  England,  was  offered  the  parish 
of  All-Hallows  in  London,  and  finally  a  bishopric.  Fagius,  who  was  the 
companion  of  Bucer  and  Martyr,  had  been  a  minister  in  Germany,  made 
such,  of  course,  without  Episcopal  consecration  ;  and  it  is  not  true  that 
he  was  called  merely  to  teach  the  Hebrew  language  at  Cambridge,  as  a 
Jew  might  teach.  He  was  to  expound  the  Old  Testament,  beginning 
with  the  prophet  Isaiah,  and  he  was  welcomed  from  the  beginning  by 


TO    THE    OTHER    PROTEST  ANT    CHURCHES.  183 

Cranmer  as  an  intimate  counsellor  and  friend.  That  Fagius,  a  minister 
of  high  standing  in  Germany,  would  have  accepted  such  an  appointment 
from  those  who  denied  his  right  to  exercise  the  ministry,  is  something 
quite  incredible.  Cranmer  went  so  far  as  to  declare,  in  a  written  docu- 
ment, in  1540,  that  no  consecration  of  bishops  or  priests  is  necessary, 
"for  election  or  appointment  thereto  is  sufficient."  (Burnet,  I.,  ii..  Col- 
lection of  Records,  iii.,  21.)  That  Cranmer  referred  to  ordination,  and  not 
to  institution  merely,  is  made  perfectly  clear  by  the  same  document. 
The  voluminous  correspondence  of  the  eminent  English  divines  and  re- 
formers, which  has  been  published  principally  from  the  archives  of  Zu- 
rich, must  convince  every  candid  person  who  examines  it,  that  no  sus- 
picion of  a  want  of  validity  in  the  orders  of  the  Helvetic  ministers,  whose 
advice  they  so  frequently  sought,  and  whose  hospitality  they  enjoyed, 
ever  entered  their  minds.  No  man  who  has  read,  for  example,  the  nu- 
merous letters  of  Bishop  Cox,  a  warm  defender  of  the  English  liturgy 
against  the  Puritans,  to  Gualter,  the  son-in-law  of  Zwingle — his  "beloved 
Rodolph,"  as  Cox  styles  him — will  have  the  effrontery  to  affirm  that  the 
English  bishop  looked  on  his  Swiss  friend  and  adviser  as  one  who  had  no 
right  to  exercise  the  functions  of  the  ministry.  In  the  last  days  of  Ed- 
ward VI.,  Cranmer  was  corresponding  with  Calvin,  Bullinger,  andMelanch- 
thon,  in  order  to  bring  together  a  general  synod  of  the  Protestants,  where 
a  platform  of  doctrine  might  be  made,  in  which  their  disagreement  re- 
specting the  Lord's  Supper — the  only  serious  point  of  difference — might 
be  adjusted.  There  is  no  trace  of  the  exclusive,  or  jure  divinOy  theory 
of  episcopacy,  in  the  writings  of  Cranmer,  Parker,  Grindal,  and  Whit- 
gift,  the  first  four  Protestant  archbishops  of  Canterbury.  Whether  Ban- 
croft broached  it  in  his  sermon  at  Paul's  Cross,  is  still  a  controverted 
point;  Hallam  maintains  that  he  did  not.  That  this  theory,  which,  in 
its  logical  consequences,  would  "unchurch"  the  other  Protestant  relig- 
ious bodies,  and  discredit  the  orders  of  their  ministry,  does  not  appear 
until  about  the  time  of  Hooker,  is  granted  by  Keble  in  the  elaborate  es- 
say prefixed  to  his  edition  of  Hooker's  writings.  It  certainly  sounds 
strange  to  hear  Keble,  all  whose  prepossessions  were  on  the  side  of  the 
High  Church  doctrine,  charged  with  error  for  conceding  what,  if  the  evi- 
dence in  the  case  had  not  required,  he  would  surely  have  been  very  loth 
to  admit.  But  Keble  had  carefully  and  thoroughly  explored  the  histori- 
cal question,  as  his  essay  abundantly  shows. 

The  opinion  of  Protestants  of  the  English  Church  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury on  this  subject  was  closely  connected  with  two  other  facts  which  de- 
serve special  attention.  The  first  was  the  prevailing  doctrine  at  that  time 
that  bishops  do  not  constitute  a  distinct  order  in  the  ministry,  but  that 
bishops  and  presbyters  are  different  grades  of  the  same  office.  This  was 
a  common  view  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  the  middle  ages,  since 
an  ecclesiastical  arrangement  was  thought  to  have  the  force  of  an  institu- 
tio  divina.     The  miracle  of  the  Eucharist  being  the  highest  act  which  the 


184     THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 

clergyman  could  perform,  and  this  being  open  to  the  priest,  it  was  plausi- 
bly argued  that  there  can  be  no  order  of  ministers  above  him.  This 
ground  was  taken,  even  by  a  Pope,  Urban  II,,  and  is  sanctioned  by  the 
most  orthodox  of  the  schoolmen.  Those  who  are  curious  to  see  the  proofs 
of  this  statement  may  be  referred  to  Gieseler's  Church  llutory  (Am.  ed., 
i. ,  p.  91,  n.).  The  same  fact  respecting  the  mediseval  opinion  is  proved 
in  a  work  which  has  always  been  held  in  high  honor  by  Episcopalians, 
Field's  'Treatise  on  the  Church  (b,  iii. ,  p.  39),*  Cranmer  subscribes  to 
this  old  opinion  of  the  original  and  essential  identity  of  the  office  of  bishop 
and  that  of  presbyter.  He  held  that  "  in  the  New  Testament  there  is  no 
mention  made  of  any  degrees  or  distinctions  in  orders,  but  only  of  deacons 
or  ministers,  and  of  priests  or  bishops. "  Thirteen  bishops,  with  a  great 
number  of  other  ecclesiastics,  subscribed  to  this  proposition.  See  Bur- 
net's Collection  of  Records^  II.,  i.  iii.,  21.)  Bishop  Jewel,  one  of  the  great 
lights  of  the  English  Reformation,  in  his  celebrated  "Defence"  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  in  his  "  Apology,"  took  no  other  ground.  He 
falls  back  on  the  doctrine  that  "  bishops  are  greater  than  presbyters  by 
order  and  custom  of  the  church,  and  not  by  the  truth  of  God's  ordi- 
nance."    (Jewel's  Writings,  Parker  Soc.  ed.,  1.,  p.  379.)  f    This  is  the 


*  "These  being  the  divers  sorts  and  kinds  of  ecclesiastical  power,  it 
will  easily  appear  unto  all  that  enter  into  the  due  consideration  thereof, 
that  the  power  of  ecclesiastical  or  sacred  order,  that  is,  the  power  and 
authority  to  intermeddle  with  things  pertaining  to  the  service  of  God, 
and  to  perform  eminent  acts  of  gracious  efficiency,  tending  to  the  procur- 
ing of  the  eternal  good  of  the  sons  of  men,  is  equal  and  the  same  in  all 
those  whom  we  call  presbyters,  that  is,  fatherly  guides  of  God's  church 
and  people  :  and  that  only  for  order's  sake  and  the  preservation  of  peace 
there  is  a  limitation  of  the  use  and  exercise  of  the  same."  Dean  Field 
states  that  the  Romanists  themselves  concede  this,  and  adds:  "  Whereby 
it  is  most  evident  that  that  wherein  a  bishop  excelleth  a  presbyter,  is  not 
a  distinct  power  of  order,  but  an  eminency  and  dignity  only,  specially 
yielded  to  one  above  all  the  rest  of  the  same  rank,  for  order's  sake,  and  to 
preserve  the  unity  and  peace  of  the  church."  That  Dean  Field  is  here 
stating  his  own  opinion  is  made  perfectly  evident  by  the  context.  See, 
also,  b.  v.,  c.  27,  where  the  same  doctrine  is  laid  down. 

f  "St.  Hierome  saith  generally  of  all  bishops:  noverint  Episcopi  se 
magis  consuetudine,  quam  dispositioni^  dominiccB  Deritate,  preshyteris  esse 
majores  :  '  let  bishops  understand  that  they  be  greater  than  the  priests 
by  order  and  custom  (of  the  church),  and  not  by  the  truth  of  God's  ordi- 
nance,' If  Christ,  as  St.  Hierome  saith,  appointed  not  one  priest  above 
another,  how  then  is  it  likely  he  appointed  one  priest  to  be,  as  M,  Hard- 
ing saith,  prince  and  ruler  over  all  priests  throughout  the  whole  world  ?  " 
In  another  place,  Jewel  says:   "Is  it  so  horrible  an  heresy  as  he  [Hard- 


TO    THE    OTHER   PEOTESTANT    CHURCHES.  185 

explicit  doctrine  of  Dean  Field,  in  the  passage  to  which  I  have  just  re- 
ferred. 

The  second  circumstance  which  it  is  important  to  notice,  is  the  preva- 
lent belief  in  the  system  of  national  churches,  and  the  adoption  by  many, 
of  the  Erastian  theory  of  the  supremacy  of  the  civil  magistrate  in  eccle- 
siastical affairs.  The  first  Reformers  in  England  were  of  this  mind,  and 
the  English  Reformation  was  effected  under  this  theory.  Calvin  opposed 
it,  and  fought  out  the  battle  at  Geneva  in  behalf  of  the  right  of  the 
church,  by  its  own  organs,  to  excommunicate  unworthy  members.  Cal- 
vinists  generally  resisted  the  Erastian  doctrine  in  its  extreme  form  ;  yet 
they  conceded  to  the  magistrates  of  each  country  a  large  measure  of 
power  in  matters  of  religion.  The  bishops  of  Elizabeth  found  it  very 
hard,  however,  to  yield  up  to  their  imperious  sovereign  that  extent  of 
control  which  she  demanded ;  as  the  suspension  of  Archbishop  Grindal 
and  many  other  events  of  like  cljaracter  illustrate.  The  main  point  here 
is  that  the  Anglican  divines  paid  a  great  respect  to  national  churches  and 
to  the  right  of  each  country  to  frame  its  own  church  institutions,  and  to 
order  its  own  church  affairs. 


ing]  maketh  it,  to  say  that  by  the  Scriptures  of  God  a  bishop  and  a  priest 
are  all  one."  Then  Jewel  proceeds  to  quote  Chrysostom,  Jerome,  and 
other  fathers  in  support  of  the  doctrine  that  they  are  the  same.  P.  iii,, 
p,  439  {Defence  of  the  Apology).  Thomas  Becon,  chaplain  to  Cranmer, 
and  Prebendary  of  Canterbury,  writes,  in  his  Catechism:  '"''  Fath&r. — 
What  difference  is  there  between  a  bishop  and  a  spiritual  minister  ?  Son. 
— None  at  all :  their  office  is  one,  their  authority  and  power  is  one.  And, 
therefore,  St,  Paul  calleth  the  spiritual  ministers  sometime  bishops,  some- 
time elders,  sometime  pastors,  sometime  teachers,  etc."  The  same  doc- 
trine is  in  The  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,  published  by  authority 
in  1537,  Pilkington,  the  first  Protestant  bishop  of  Durham,  writes  in 
1561  :  ''  The  privileges  and'superiorities  which  bishops  have  above  other 
ministers,  are  rather  granted  by  man  for  maintaining  of  better  order  and 
quietness  in  commonwealths,  than  commanded  by  God  in  his  Word.  Min- 
isters have  better  knowledge  and  utterance  some  than  other,  but  their 
ministry  is  of  equal  dignity,"  (Pilkington's  Works^  Parker  Soc.  ed-,  p. 
493,)  The  same  doctrine  is  taught  by  Fulke,  Master  of  Pembroke  Col- 
lege. In  Blunt's  Annotated  Prayer-Book^  the  notes  to  which  are  from 
the  High  Church  point  of  view,  it  is  said  :  "  It  was  not  until  the  close  of 
the  sixteenth  century  that  the  distinction  between  the  orders  of  bishops 
and  priests  was  asserted.  On  Feb.  9,  1589,  Dr,  Bancroft,  in  a  sermon, 
maintained  the  superiority  of  bishops /wre  <Z^«^/^o  /  the  doctrine  was  com- 
pletely acknowledged  during  the  primacy  of  Laud,  and  enforced  by  Bishop 
Hall  in  a  well-known  treatise  on  the  subject "  (p.  5G6).  Of  Bishop  Hall's 
qualified  form  of  t\iQJure  divino  doctrine,  we  shall  speak  hereafter. 


186     THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHUKCH  OF  ENGLAND 

The  conflict  with  the  Puritans,  which  began  with  the  accession  of  Eliza- 
beth, had  become  stern  and  bitter  in  the  time  of  Wbitg-ift.  But  this  in- 
flexible enemy  of  Puritanism  never  calls  in  question  the  validity  of  the 
method  of  ordination  prevailing  in  the  churches  abroad.  He  conducts 
his  whole  controversy  with  Cartwright,  the  Presbyterian  champion,  with- 
out any  assertion  of  the  jure  divino  doctrine  of  episcopacy.  Field,  the 
celebrated  Dean  of  Gloucester,  the  warm  friend  of  Hooker,  also,  as  we 
have  said,  defends  the  foreign  churches,  and  maintains  the  sufiBciency  of 
their  orders.  Whether  Hooker  himself  holds  that  the  right  to  establish 
or  abolish  episcopacy  is  included  in  that  broad  legislative  jurisdiction 
which  he  attributes  to  the  church,  is  a  question  of  interpretation  on 
which  opinion  is  divided.  In  settling  this  question  much  depends  on  our 
judgment  respecting  the  integrity  of  the  last  three  books  of  his  treatise. 
This  is  certain,  however,  that  he  recognized  the  validity  of  the  ordina- 
tion of  the  ministers  of  the  Reformed  churches  on  the  Continent.  He 
finds  in  their  circumstances  an  excuse  for  their  practice.  Hooker  never 
questioned,  c^  thought  of  questioning,  the  right  of  a  Huguenot  or  a  Ger- 
man minister  to  dispense  the  sacraments. 

There  was  nothing,  then,  in  the  principles  of  the  Church  of  England, 
in  the  period  of  which  we  are  speaking,  that  was  incompatible  with  the 
granting  of  a  parish  to  a  minister  ordained  through  presbyters  alone. 
That  is,  there  was  no  difficulty  from  any  supposed  defect  in  his  ordina- 
tion. The  statute  of  the  thirteenth  of  Elizabeth  was  a  part  of  her  coer- 
cive measures  for  securing  uniformity.  It  required  all  ministers  who 
had  been  ordained  by  any  other  method  than  that  prescribed  under 
Edward  YI.,  to  present  themselves  before  the  bishop,  and  give  their  ap- 
proval of  the  Articles  of  Religion.  The  terms  of  the  act  cover  the  case 
of  Roman  Catholic  priests,  and  also  the  case  of  Protestant  ministers 
who  might  have  been  ordained  abroad,  whether  in  Scotland,  or  on  the 
Continent,  during  the  period  of  exile  in  the  preceding  reign.  That  the 
law  wa^  designed  to  refer  to  this  second  clas§,  as  well  as  to  the  other,  has 
been  affirmed  by  English  historians  and  theologians  of  every  party. 
Strype  says  that  they  were  "  undoubtedly  "  meant.  It  is  now  denied  by 
your  correspondent  that  such  cases  ever  existed.  He  sets  aside  the  au- 
thority of  Hallam,  who  deliberately  affirms  that  "  instances  of  foreigners 
holding  preferment  without  any  reordination  may  be  found  down  to  the 
civil  wars."  {Const.  Hist,  Harper's  Am.  ed. ,  p.  226.)  To  contradict 
Hallam  on  a  matter  of  this  sort  one  should  be  very  sure  of  his  ground. 
Your  correspondent  dismisses  Macaulay  in  an  equally  summary  manner, 
as  one  ''full  of  party  prejudice."  Macaulay  is  a  somewhat  rhetorical 
writer :  and  in  the  multitude  of  details  which  crowd  his  history,  a  few 
errors  have  been  detected.  But  no  man  was  more  familiar  with  the 
times  of  which  he  wrote,  and  he  is  not  an  inaccurate  author.  Your  cor- 
respondent likewise  d'smisses  Bishop  Burnet  with  a  disparagement  which 
I  believe  to  be  scarcely  less  unjust.     Even  Strype,  he  thinks,  is  not  to  be 


TO   THE    OTHER    PROTESTANT    CHURCHES.  187 

tarusted.  But  here  come  Bishop  Fleetwood  and  Bishop  Cosin.*  Both 
are  witnesses  of  unimpeached  veracity.  Bishop  Cosin  has  personally 
known  of  individuals  who  had  taken  English  parishes  with  only  Presbyte- 
rian orders,  and  knew  of  many  other  cases  before  his  time.  This  would 
strike  one  as  conclusive  testimony.  But  as  Bishop  Cosin  did  not  specify 
the  cases,  his  declaration  is  not  to  be  accepted !  Fleetwood  was  born 
sixteen  years  after  1641,  the  latest  date  at  which  instances  of  this  sort 
could  have  occurred,  and  therefore  he  is  not  to  be  believed  !  As  if  per- 
sons who  took  parishes  before  1G41  might  not  have  lived  long  enough  for 
Fleetwood  to  know  them  ;  and  as  if  a  man  cannot  get  credible  informa- 
tion respecting  anything  prior  to  his  birth  !  It  would  be  instructive  to 
see  what  would  become,  on  such  principles  of  reasoning,  of  accepted  ar- 
guments from  what  Irenseus  and  other  fathers  say  of  the  constitution  of 
the  church  before  their  time. 

These  witnesses,  then,  to  whom  your  correspondent  alludes,  fully  es- 
tablish the  fact  which  he  seeks  to  disprove.  But  there  are  other  proofs, 
equally  if  not  more  decisive.  Lord  Bacon  probably  wrote  his  Adver- 
tisement concerning  Controversies  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  1589.  In 
the  course  of  this  tract  he  adverts  to  the  gradual  sharpening  of  the  an- 
tagonism between  the  two  contestants,  the  Puritan  and  the  Churchman. 
He  says  that  stiff  defenders  of  episcopacy  were  beginning  to  condemn 
their  opponents  as  a  "sect."  "Yea,"  he  adds,  "and  some  indiscreet 
persons  have  been  bold  in  open  preaching  to  use  dishonorable  and  deroga- 
tive speech  and  censure  of  the  churches  abroad ;  and  that  so  far  as  some 
of  our  men,  as  I  have  heard,  ordained  in  foreign  parts,  have  been  pro- 
nounced to  be  no  lawful  ministers.  Thus  we  see  the  beginnings  were 
modest,  but  the  extremes  were  violent,  so  as  there  is  almost  as  great  a  dis- 


*  Fleetwood  became  a  bishop  in  1708.  He  says:  "During  the  reigns 
of  King  James  and  King  Charles  I.,  and  to  the  year  1661,  we  had  many 
ministers  from  Scotland,  from  France,  and  the  Low  Countries,  who  were 
ordained  by  presbyters  only,  and  not  bishops,  and  they  were  instituted 
into  benefices  with  cure  ....  and  yet  were  never  reordained,  but  only 
subscribed  the  Articles."  Bishop  Cosin  says  of  the  ministers  of  the 
French  Reformed  Church,  that  in  the  event  of  "  their  receiving  a 
public  charge  or  cure  of  souls  among  us  (as  I  have  known  some  of  them 
to  have  so  done  of  late,  and  can  instance  in  many  others  before  my  time) 
our  bishops  did  not  ordain  them."  "  Nor,"  he  adds,  "did  our  laws  re- 
quire more  of  such  ministers  than  to  declare  their  public  consent  to  the 
religion  received  amongst  us,  and  to  subscribe  the  Articles  established.'* 
(Letter  to  Mr.  Cordel.)  Bishop  Cosin,  a  leader  of  the  High  Church  party, 
was  born  in  1594.  He  retired  to  France  during  the  civil  war,  and  at  the 
restoration  was  made  a  bishop.  Bishop  Hall's  perfectly  decisive  testi- 
mony we  present  on  a  later  page. 


188     THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHrECH  OF  ENGLAND 

tance  of  either  side  from  itself  as  was  at  the  first  of  one  from  the  other." 
This  he  accounts  for  on  the  ground  that  the  partisans  of  the  High  Church 
Bide  had  become  ''exasperate  through  contentions."  I  cannot  imagine 
how  this  piece  of  evidence  can  be  invalidated,  unless,  indeed,  it  should 
be  said  that  Lord  Bacon  did  not  mention  names !  There  were  ministers 
— "our  men,"  they  are  called —ministers  in  the  English  Church,  who  had 
not  been  episcopally  consecrated,  and,  hence,  were  denounced  as  having 
no  right  to  exercise  the  ministry. 

The  cases  of  Whittingham  and  Travers,  to  which  your  correspondent 
appeals,  so  far  from  tending,  when  they  are  fairly  stated,  to  support  his 
position,  strongly  tend  to  overthrow  it.  Whittingham  had  written  a  pre- 
face to  Goodman's  book  against  the  government  of  women,  which  was  a 
companion  piece  to  Knox's  famous  Blast  of  the  Trumpet,  on  the  same 
theme.  *  He  was  opposed  to  the  imposition  of  the  vestments,  and  wrote 
against  it.  On  the  19th  of  July,  1562,  he  had  been  made  Dean  of  Dur- 
ham. There  was  a  kind  of  stajiding  conflict  between  him  and  Sandys, 
Archbishop  of  York,  his  Metropolitan.  The  Archbishop  at  length  at- 
tempted to  depose  him  by  denying  that  he  had  ever  been  ordained.  A 
Commission  of  Inquiry  was  appointed,  which  came  to  no  result.  In  1578, 
a  second  commission  was  appointed.  The  Dean,  who  was  powerfully 
supported,  died  before  the  affair  was  terminated  or  a  decision  reached. 
It  is  true,  as  your  correspondent  states,  that  he  claimed  to  have  been  or- 
dained at  Geneva,  according  to  the  method  of  the  Reformed  Church 
there.  But  there  is  another  most  material  fact  which  your  correspondent 
leaves  out.  This  statement  of  Whittingham  was  denied  by  Sandys,  who 
claimed  that  he  had  not  been  thus  ordained,  but  had  been  ordained  by  a 
few  lay  persons  in  a  private  house.  The  proceeding  was  looked  upon  by 
many  as  a  reflection  upon  the  Church  of  Geneva.  This  was  the  feeling 
of  the  Lord  President,  the  Eari  of  Huntington,  who  wrote  to  Burleigh  that 
"  his  lordship  could  judge  what  flame  this  spark  was  likely  to  breed,  if  it 
should  kindle  ;  for  it  could  not  but  be  ill  taken  by  all  the  godly  learned, 
both  at  home  and  in  all  the  foreign  churches  abroad,  that  we  should  al- 
low of  the  popish  massing  priests  in  our  ministry,  and  disallow  of  the  min- 
isters made  in  a  Reformed  Church."  On  the  other  side,  the  Archbishop's 
Chancellor  reported  that  Whittingham  had  not  proved  that  he  had  been 
ordained  "at  Geneva  according  to  the  order  of  the  Genevan  [oflBce  or 
book],  by  public  authority  established  there."     (Strype,  Annals,  Oxford 


*  Whittingham  was  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  Anti-Liturgical  party  at 
Frankfort,  during  the  reign  of  Mary.  He  retired  to  Geneva,  and  took 
part  in  the  translation  of  the  Geneva  Bible,  There  is  the  best  reason 
for  believing  that  if  Whittingham  and  Travers  had  not  been  obnoxious  on 
account  of  their  Puritanism,  there  would  have  been  no  proceedings  against 
them. 


TO    THE   OTHER   PROTEST  ANT   CHURCHES.  189 

ed.,  II.,  ii.,  170.)  The  Archbishop  asserted  that  "neither  in  Geneva  nor 
in  any  Reformed  church  in  Europe  it  could  be  proved  that  any  such  or- 
ders were  ever  used  or  allowed  of."  In  short,  the  attempt  to  depose 
Whittingham  was  defended  on  the  ground  that  he  had  not  been  ordained 
according  to  the  Geneva  method ;  and  there  is  a  pretty  strong  implica- 
tion that,  if  he  had  been,  there  would  be  no  ground  for  the  proceeding 
against  him.     Is  it  not  a  case  of  exceptio  prohat  regulam  f 

Travers  was  a  candidate  for  the  oflBce  of  Master  of  the  Temple,  where 
he  was  a  preacher  at  the  time  when  Hooker  was  appointed  to  the  place. 
Travers  was  a  strict  Calvinist  and  a  strenuous  Puritan.  On  this  last  ground 
he  was  peculiarly  obnoxious  to  Whitgift.  Whitgift  resolved  to  silence 
him,  and  alleged  as  a  reason  that  he  had  not  been  properly  ordained, 
Travers  replied  that  he  had  been  ordained  at  Antwerp,  after  the  method 
of  the  Dutch  churches ;  and  asserted  that  mahy  others,  who  had  been 
ordained  in  Scotland  and  elsewhere  abroad,  had  held  offices  in  the  Eng- 
lish Church — a  statement  which,  as  he  was  a  man  of  acknowledged  ve- 
racity, must  be  believed.  He  appealed  to  the  statute  of  the  13th  of 
Elizabeth.  Whitgift  is  careful  not  to  deny  the  validity  of  Presbyterian 
ordination,  such  as  was  practiced  in  the  foreign  churches.  His  ground 
was  that  Travers  had  gone  abroad  out  of  dislike  to  the  "order  of  his 
own  country  " — the  method  of  ordination  in  the  English  Church ;  that 
he  had  been  ordained  by  such ''as  had  not  authority  to  ordain  him." 
The  charge  was  that  Travers  was  a  schismatic  ;  that,  being  in  the  Church 
of  England,  he  ran  abroad — "  gaddeth  into  other  countries" — and  there 
got  himself  ordained,  as  was  said,  by  Cartwright,  and  Villers,  a  Frenchman. 
In  this  case,  as  in  that  of  Whittingham,  there  is  no  impeachment  of  the 
ordination  of  foreign  ministers  generally,  but  rather  an  implied  admis- 
sion of  its  validity.  Travers  urged  that  Christ's  Church  being  one,  every 
person  who  has  received  ordination  in  one  branch  of  it  must  be  received 
as  a  minister  in  every  other.  Whitgift,  in  his  annotations  upon  Travers' 
paper,  refers  to  the  fact  that  the  French  Church,  when  a  minister  comes 
to  them  from  abroad,  require  something  more  than  proof  of  his  ordina- 
tion, and  subject  him  to  an  additional  "  calling."  When  the  Archbishop, 
in  his  note,  remarks  that  the  churches  which  allowed  of  Presbytery  "  are 
an  exception  to  the  rule,"  he  refers  to  the  rule  to  which  Travers  appealed, 
viz.  :  that  a  minister  in  one  place  is  a  minister  everywhere.  The  Presby- 
terian churches,  Whitgift  means  to  say,  did  not  sanction  this  rule.  Whit- 
gift, as  we  have  said,  in  all  his  conflicts  with  the  Puritans,  never  denies  the 
validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination,  as'established  in  the  foreign  Protes- 
tant churches.  Travers,  notwithstanding  his  deposition,  which  was  ac- 
complished with  difficulty,  was  called  to  Dublin  by  Archbishop  Loftus, 
and  made  Master  of  Trinity  College,  where  he  had  for  one  of  his  pupils 
Archbishop  Ussher,  then  in  his  youth. 

The  act  of  the  13th  of  Elizabeth  continued  in  force  until  the  Restora- 
tion of  Charles  II.,  when,  in  1663,  the  statute  for  uniformity  was  passed. 


190     THE  RELATION'  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 

which  forbade  any  person  to  hold  any  benefice,  or  to  administer  the  sac- 
rament of  the  Lord's  Supper  "  before  he  be  ordained  a  priest  by  Episco- 
pal ordination."  This  statute  took  away  the  last  protection  which  the 
law  afforded  to  clergymen  who  had  not  been  ordained  by  a  bishop. 

The  different  attitude  in  relation  to  other  Protestant  bodies  and  to  their 
ministry,  which  the  English  Church  assumed  under  Laud,  as  compared 
with  its  position  during  the  first  three  Protestant  reigns,  is  a  fact  as  well 
attested  by  the  consent  of  historical  scholars  of  various  and  conflicting 
schools  as  anything  else  in  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  England.  The 
reign  of  James  I.  formed  the  transition  to  this  new  position.  The  participa- 
tion of  dignitaries  of  the  English  Church  in  the  Synod  of  Dort,  was  one  of 
the  last  conspicuous  acts  of  fellowship  with  the  Reformed  Churches  of 
the  Continent.  The  Puritan  controversy  naturally  led  to  this  result.  The 
Puritans  were  at  first  treated  as  schismatics,  mutineers  against  the  Na- 
tional Church  established  by  public  authority.  It  was  natural  that  the 
churches  abroad,  whose  principles  the  Puritans  espoused,  should  eventu- 
ally be  included  in  the  same  condemnation,  and  be  pronounced  destitute 
of  a  duly  ordained  ministry.  Especially  was  this  natural  when  a  great 
part  of  the  Puritans  themselves  claimed  a,  jure  dioino  sanction  and  an  ex- 
clusive right  for  their  own  favorite  system  of  polity. 

To  enter  into  the  merits  of  this  great  controversy,  which  rent  English 
Protestantism  in  twain,  is  no  part  of  my  present  purpose.  Even  at  this 
late  day  it  may  not  be  perfectly  easy  to  hold  the  scales  of  judgment  even ; 
but  there  ought  to  be  no  dispute  about  the  facts. 

To  the  list  of  witnesses  to  the  fact  of  the  admission  of 
ministers,  not  ordained  by  bishops,  to  spiritual  preferment 
in  England,  is  to  be  added  the  name  of  Bishop  Hall,  who 
was  the  most  conspicnous  defender  of  episcopacy  just  prior 
to  the  civil  war.  In  his  Defence  of  the  Ilmnhle  JRemon- 
strance^  which  was  written  at  that  time,  he  says :  "  I  know 
those,  more  than  one,  that  by  virtue  only  of  that  ordination 
which  they  have  brought  with  them  from  other  reformed 
churches,  have  enjoyed  spiritual  promotions  and  livings, 
without  any  exception  against  the  lawfulness  of  their  call- 
ing." Such  testimony  would  seem  to  be  sufficient  to  con- 
vince the  most  skeptical.  The  gravest  objection  which  is 
urged  against  proofs  of  this  character  is  that  the  witnesses 
5o  not  give  names !  Then,  when  the  Evangelists  tell  us 
that  many  people  went  to  hear  John  the  Baptist,  we  must 
discredit  them   because   they  do   not  mention  names   and 


TO    THE    OTHER    PROTESTANT    CHURCHES.  191 

places  of  residence.  As  we  have  brought  forward  proofs 
derived  from  Episcopal  sources,  we  may  certainly  be  per- 
mitted, by  way  of  corroboration,  to  add  the  statement  of  the 
learned  Puritan  historian,  Neal,  whom  it  is  too  much  the 
fashion  of  the  High  Church  school  to  disparage.  Speaking 
of  the  state  of  things  about  the  year  1580,  he  says :  "  The 
statute  of  the  13th  Eliz.,  cap.  xii.,  admits  the  ministration  of 
those  who  had  only  been  ordained  according  to  the  manner  of 
the  Scots,  or  other  foreign  churches  :  there  were  some  scores, 
if  not  hundreds,  of  them  now  in  the  church."  *  The  case  of 
John  Morrison,  who  was  licensed  by  Archbishop  Grindal,  in 
1582,  to  preach  and  administer  the  sacraments  in  the  prov- 
ince of  Canterbury,  has  often  been  referred  to.  The  license 
was  issued,  with  the  assent  of  the  Archbishop,  by  Dr.  Aubrey, 
the  vicar-general;  and  it  describes  Morrison  as  one  who 
had  been  ordained  according  to  the  "  laudable  form  and  rite 
of  the  Eef  ormed  Church  of  Scotland,"  which  at  that  time  was 
essentially  Presbyterian.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
his  ordination  was  by  the  synod  of  the  County  of  Lothian. 

The  following  is  Professor  Fisher's  second  letter  to  the 
Tribune. 

Sir  :  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  courteous  tone  of  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Drumm's  communication,  in  which  he  makes  another  attempt  to  dis- 
prove the  statement  that  Presbyterian  ministers  were  once  admitted  to 
parishes  in  the  Church  of  England  without  reordination.  But,  after 
having  read  his  acute  and  learned  argument,  I  miist  still  decline  to  com- 
ply with  his  invitation  to  retract  the  assertion,  for  the  reason  that  I  am 
fully  convinced  of  its  truth.  The  testimony  of  Lord  Bacon,  which  Dr. 
Drumm  does  not  notice  ;  of  Bishop  Cosin — I  know  of  no  reason  for  ques- 
tioning the  genuineness  of  his  letter — of  Bishop  Fleetwood,  of  Bishop 
Burnet,  and  of  Strype,  not  to  speak  of  other  proofs,  appears  to  me  quite 
sufficient  to  establish  the  fact.f  The  circumstance  that  the  witnesses  do 
not  mention  the  names  of  persons  and  of  parishes  only  shows  the  absence 
of  all  anticipation  that  at  some  remote  day  their  statement  would  be 
called  in  question.     I  am  confirmed  in  the  opinion  that  they  are  correct, 


*  History  of  the  Puritans^  P.  I. ,  c.  vi. 

f  For  the  conclusive  testimony  of  Bishop  Hall,  see  p.  190. 


192     THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHUBCH  OF  ENGLAND 

from  the  fact  that  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination  was  not  ques- 
tioned in  the  Church  of  England  at  that  time,  and  that  the  relations  of 
England  with  Scotland,  and  with  the  Continent,  especially  after  the  de- 
feat of  the  Protestants  in  Germany  by  Charles  V. ,  and  during  the  Marian 
period,  were  such  as  would  naturally  bring  into  England  ministers  who 
had  received  ordination  in  the  Protestant  churches  abroad.  I  am  further 
strengthened  in  this  opinion  by  the  authority  of  such  historians  as  Hallam 
and  Macaulay,  to  say  nothing  of  Lathbury  and  others  of  less  note,  and  by 
the  concurrence  of  Episcopal  theologians  who  have  studied  the  subject, 
likeKeble.* 

I  have  no  occasion  to  engage  in  a  debate  with  Dr.  Drumm  about  the 
merits  of  English  historical  writers.  I  would  only  remind  him  that  Hal- 
lam published  his  last  revision  of  the  ConsUixdional  History^  the  best  and 
most  thorough  of  all  his  works,  in  1846.  Dr.  Drumm  is  mistaken  in  say- 
ing that  Hallam  offers  no  evidence  of  his  statement  in  regard  to  the  ad- 
mission of  Presbyterian  ministers  to  parishes.  Dr.  Drumm  probably  re- 
ferred to  the  second  passage  in  which  Hallam  makes  this  assertion,  and 
overlooked  the  first,  with  which  the  marginal  references  are  connected. 
Everybody  knows  that  Macaulay  paints  in  strong  colors ;  but  a  few  in- 
stances of  error,  as  when  he  confounds  George  Penn  the  pardon-broker 
with  William  Penn  the  Quaker,  only  set  in  relief  the  miraculous  reten- 
tiveness  and  almost  unfailing  accuracy  of  his  memory.  As  to  Burnet,  I 
think  Macaulay  right,  who  says  of  the  charge  of  inaccuracy  brought 
against  him :  "I  believe  the  charge  to  be  altogether  unjust.  He  appears 
to  be  singularly  inaccurate  only  because  his  narrative  has  been  subjected 
to  scrutiny  singularly  severe  and  unfriendly."  Burnet  was  born  in  Scot- 
land about  the  beginning  of  the  civil  war  in  England  ;  he  was  personally 
familiar  with  both  countries,  and  with  the  churches  abroad  ;  and  he  was 
an  honest  man.  When,  therefore,  in  explaining  the  Act  of  Uniformity 
of  1661,  he  says  (in  the  History  of  Ms  own  Time) :  "Another  point  was 
fixed  by  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  which  was  more  at  large  formerly ;  those 
who  came  to  England  f roin  the  foreign  churches  had  not  been  required  to 
be  ordained  among  us ;  but  now  all  that  had  not  Episcopal  ordination 
were  made  incapable  of  holding  any  ecclesiastical  benefice  " — I  believe 
that  he  tells  the  truth. 


*  Keble  says  :  "Nearly  up  to  the  time  when  he  [Hooker]  wrote,  num- 
bers had  been  admitted  to  the  ministry  of  the  Church  in  England,  with 
no  better  than  Presbyterian  ordination,  and  it  appears  by  Travers's  Suppli- 
cation to  the  Council  that  such  was  the  construction  not  uncommonly  put 
upon  the  statute  of  the  13th  of  Elizabeth,  permitting  those  who  had  re- 
ceived orders  in  any  other  form  than  that  of  the  English  Service  Book,  on 
giving  certain  securities,  to  exercise  their  calling  in  England." — Preface  to 
Hookefs  Works,  vol.  1.,  xxvi. 


TO   THE   OTHER   PROTESTANT   CHURCHES.  193 

Dr.  Drumm  seems  to  differ  from  me  in  relation  to  the  date  when  the 
jure  divino  doctrine  of  episcopacy  began  to  be  promulgated  in  the  Church 
of  England,  He  attributes  this  doctrine  to  Whitgift,  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbuiy,  in  the  closing  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign.  In  this  Dr.  Drumm  is 
surely  wrong.  If  the  passage  which  he  quotes  warranted  the  inference 
which  he  draws  from  it,  it  would  stand  in  flagrant  contradiction  to  the 
whole  tenor  of  Whitgift' s  writings,  and  to  his  explicit  affirmations.  By 
the  jiwe  divino  doctrine  is  meant  not  simply  that  episcopacy  existed  in 
the  apostolic  age,  under  the  sanction  of  the  apostles,  but  that  it  is  a  per- 
petual and  indispensable  form  of  polity.  Whitgift  believed  in  the  apos- 
tolic origin  of  episcopacy,  and  that  it  ought  to  be  continued  ;  but  he  did 
not  deny  that  churches,  with  a  lawful  ministry,  could  exist  without  it. 
In  the  letter  to  Beza,  from  which  Dr.  Drumm  has  quoted,  which  was 
written  as  late  as  1593,  he  says  :  "  There  is  no  mortal  man  more  studious 
of  the  peace  of  the  church  than  myself ;  nor  one  who,  frora  his  soul, 
more  truly  wisheth  that  every  particular  church  would  mind  its  own  busi- 
ness, and  not  prescribe  the  laws  of  rites  and  the  manner  of  government 
to  others."  This  practice  it  is,  he  adds,  '*  which  bringeth  forth  that  un- 
happy estrangement  of  souls  among  brethren,"  He  agrees  with  Beza 
that  * '  liberty  was  to  be  left  to  every  church,  in  rites  and  such  externals, 
so  that  they  be  made  to  edification."  "I  pray,"  he  says,  "that  you 
would  go  on,  by  your  daily  prayers  poured  forth  to  God,  to  help  us  and 
the  whole  Church  of  England,  which  we  do  diligently  for  you  and  your 
church  settled  there  with  you."  In  the  same  letter,  Whitgift  says  tffat 
Sutcliff's  book  (published  in  1591)  was  the  first  attack  that  had  been 
made  in  England  against  the  Presbyterian  system  as  it  existed  abroad ; 
and  that  this  was  provoked  by  the  long- continued  aspersions  cast  upon 
the  English  system  by  the  Puritans  and  by  their  foreign  abettors.  *  In 
the  preface  to  the  "Defense"  against  Cartwright,  Whitgift  says  of  "the 
order  of  things  external,  touching  the  government  of  the  church  and  ad- 
ministration of  the  sacraments  :  "  "We  do  not  take  upon  us  (as  we  are 
slandered)  either  to  blame  or  to  condemn  other  churches,  for  such  orders 
as  they  have  received  most  fit  for  their  estates."  Elsewhere  he  says : 
"  That  any  one  kind  of  government  is  so  necessary  that  without  it  the 
church  cannot  be  saved,  or  that  it  may  not  be  altered  into  some  other 
kind  thought  to  be  more  expedient,  I  utterly  deny."  He  cites  with  ap- 
proval the  declaration  of  Calvin  that  "in  ceremonies  and  external  disci- 
pline, He  [GodJ  hath  not  in  Scripture  particularly  determined  anything, 
but  left  the  same  to  His  church,  to  make  or  to  abrogate,  to  alter  or  con- 
tinue, to  add  or  to  take  away,  as  shall  be  thought  from  time  to  time  most 
convenient  for  the  present  state  of  the  church,"  "  Wherein,"  says  Whit- 
gift, "  do  we  agree  with  the  Papists  ?  or  wherein  do  we  dissent  from  the 
Reformed  Churches  ?    With  these  we  have   all  points   of  doctrine  and 

f  Strype,  Life  of  Whitgift,  b.  iv.,  c.  x. 


194     THE  EELATION  OF  THE  CHUECH  OF  ENGLAND 

substance  common  ;  from  the  other  we  dissent,  in  the  m6st  part  both  of 
doctrine  and  ceremonies."  *  The  episcopacy  which  Whitgift  advocates 
is  a  superiority  of  one  minister  over  other  ministers  in  office  or  degree,  as 
an  arrangement  of  government,  for  the  sake  of  union  and  discipline. 
Kome  to  him  is  still  *' Antichrist,"  and  the  foreign  churches  of  the  Prot- 
estants are  recognized  and  honored  as  they  were  by  Cranmer  and  Parker. 

The  jure  dimno  theory  dates  from  the  era  of  Laud.  It  is  intimately 
connected  with  the  sacerdotal  idea  of  episcopacy  which,  prior  to  that 
date,  however  it  may  have  been  suggested,  had  not  gained  a  foothold  in 
the  Church  of  England,  and  had  been  repudiated  in  the  teaching  of  her 
greatest  reformers  and  divines.  It  was  one  item  in  that  accusation 
against  Laud  which  cost  him  his  head,  that,  as  a  part  of  a  scheme  for 
"Romanizing"  the  Church  of  England,  he  had  broken  ofiE  communion 
with  the  Protestant  churches  abroad,  and  had  tried  to  lead  Bishop  Hall 
to  lay  down  a  theory  of  episcopacy  that  would  exclude  them  from  fellow- 
ship. Clarendon,  describing  the  causes  of  the  civil  war,  states  how,  a  few 
years  before  its  commencement,  the  foreign  churches  in  England,  which 
had  before  been  cherished  and  protected,  were  broken  up,  on  the  osten- 
sible ground  that  they  lent  aid  and  comfort,  by  their  example  and  other- 
wise, to  the  Puritans.  This  harsh  measure  of  the  government  he  explains 
by  the  fact  ' '  that  the  power  of  churchmen  grew  more  transcendent,  and, 
indeed,  the  faculties  of  the  lay-counsellors  more  dull,  lazy,  and  inactive." 
Then  he  relates  how  a  new  policy  was  adopted  by  the  English  ambassa- 
dors abroad,  which  turned  the  foreign  Protestants  against  the  English 
king  :— 

*'  Whereas  in  all  former  times,  the  embassadors,  and  all  foreign  minis- 
ters of  state,  employed  from  England  into  any  parts  where  the  reformed 
religion  was  exercised,  frequented  their  churches,  gave  all  possible  coun- 
tenance to  their  profession,  and  held  correspondence  with  the  most  active 
and  powerful  persons  of  that  relation,  and  especially  the  embassador 
lieger  at  Paris,  from  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  had  diligently  and 
constantly  frequented  the  church  at  Charenton,"  "  some  advertisements, 
if  not  instructions,  were  given  to  the  embassadors  there  '  to  forbear  any 
extraordinary  commerce  with  that  tribe.'"  Lord  Soudamore,  the  Eng- 
lish embassador.  Clarendon  further  states,  fitted  up  a  chapel,  in  ritualistic 
fashion,  in  his  own  house,  and  took  pains  to  say  "  that  the  Church  of 
England  looked  not  on  the  Huguenots  as  a  part  of  their  communion," 
"which,"  adds  Clarendon,  "was  too  much  and  too  industriously  dis- 
coursed at  home." 

Dr.  Drumm  concedes  that,  in  the  age  following  the  Reformation,  there 
was  an  ecclesiastical  fellowship  between  the  Church  of  England  and  the 
Protestant  churches  abroad.  However  it  may  suit  the  convenience  of 
certain  writers  to  ignore  or  deny  this  fact,  it  is  established  by  most  cou- 

*  These  passages  are  from  Whitgif t's  Writings^  Parker  Soc.  ed. 


TO  THE  OTHER  PROTESTANT  CHURCHES.        195 

vincing  and  multiplied  proofs.  One  might  as  well  deny  that  Edward  VI. 
and  Elizabeth  ever  reigned,  or  that  Cranmer,  Ridley,  Jewel,  Parker,  and 
their  cotemporaries  ever  lived,  as  to  call  in  question  the  fact  of  an  unin- 
terrupted and  cordial  fellowship  on  their  part  with  the  Protestant,  and 
especially  the  Zwinglian  and  Calvinistic,  Churches  of  the  Continent,  It  is 
high  time  that  the  attempt  of  a  school  of  partisan  writers  to  cover  up 
this  fact  should  cease  ;  if,  for  no  other  reason,  to  save  themselves  from 
the  contempt  of  all  well-informed  students  of  English  history.  The  invi- 
tation given  by  Cranmer  to  foreign  theologians,  to  take  posts  of  high  in- 
fluence and  honor  in  the  English  Church,  is  only  one  of  a  multitude  of 
circumstances  which  illustrate  the  ecclesiastical  communion,  as  well  as 
the  personal  intimacy  that  subsisted  between  the  Anglican  and  the  Con- 
tinental divines.  If  Bishop  Potter  now  held  in  his  diocese  the  station 
which  Cranmer  held  in  England,  and  if  he  were  to  invite  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Schaff  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  William  Adams — or  two  Presbyterian  ministers 
of  equal  distinction  from  Europe — to  take  chairs  in  the  General  Theolo- 
gical Seminary,  where  Episcopal  clergymen  are  trained  ;  if  he  were,  also, 
to  request  them,  as  Cranmer  requested  Bucer  and  Fagius,  to  translate 
the  Bible  into  Latin,  with  * '  explanations  of  the  diflQcult  passages  in 
each  chapter,  and  the  addition  of  summaries  and  parallel  places,"  the 
whole  to  be  subsequently  rendered  into  English  for  the  use  of  preachers 
and  people ;  *  if  he  were  to  ask  them,  further,  to  furnish  criticisms  of 
the  Prayer- Book  with  a  view  to  the  revision  of  it  and  to  aid  him  in 
drawing  up  a  creed  to  which  the  clergy  of  his  diocese  should  subscribe  ; 
if  Bishop  Potter  were  to  do  all  this,  he  would  surely  be  judged  not  to 
have  any  decided  repugnance  to  Presbyterian  ordination.  But  Cranmer 
and  other  leaders  of  the  English  Reformation  have  left  on  record  direct 
and  conclusive  evidence  of  their  opinions  on  this  subject.  Their  opinions, 
it  may  be  here  remarked,  are  not  ascertained  by  inference  from  a  few 
old  phrases  left  standing  in  the  Prayer-Book,  but  from  their  personal 
declarations,  supported  and  illustrated  as  these  are  by  their  uniform  con- 
duct. 

Dr.  Drumm  concedes  that  the  Church  of  England  was  in  communion 
with  the  other  Protestant  churches ;  but  he  sets  forth  an  hypothesis  to 
account  for  it,  which  I  cannot  but  consider  historically  groundless.  His 
explanation  is,  in  substance,  that  the  Reformers  generally  believed  in 
episcopacy  as  the  true  and  right  form  of  church  government,  and  that, 
for  this  reason,  the  English  kept  up  their  connection  with  their  Protes- 
tant brethren,  and  maintained  communion  with  them  until  forbearance 
ceased  to  be  a  virtue.  The  real  explanation  is,  that  until  the  conflict 
with  Puritanism  had  reached  its  height,  the  English  accorded  with  the 
Continental  Reformers  in  regarding  episcopacy  as  among  things  indiffer- 
ent, which  a  church  might  adopt  or  reject  at  its  will.     If  there  was  tol- 


196  THE   RELATION   OF   THE    CHTJKCH    OF   ENGLAND 

eration  or  forbearance  on  either  side,  during  the  period  to  which  I  refer, 
it  was  exercised  toward  the  English  more  than  by  them,  and  was  so  un- 
derstood by  both  parties. 

At  the  outset  of  the  Protestant  movement,  Luther  in  his  Address  to 
the  Nobles  of  the  German  Nation,  struck  at  the  root  of  the  tree  by  deny- 
ing the  existence  of  a  priestly  class  in  the  church,  and  hj  asserting  the  uni- 
versal priesthood  of  disciples.  A  company  of  pious  laymen,  in  a  desert, 
could  choose  one  of  their  number  to  be  their  minister,  and  ' '  the  man  so 
chosen  would  be  as  truly  a  priest  as  if  all  the  bishops  in  the  world  had 
consecrated  him."  This"  doctrine  was  the  key-note  to  the  Reformation. 
It  was  professed  in  its  essential  principle  by  the  Reformers  in  all  countries, 
and  by  none  more  emphatically  than  by  Cranmer.  With  him  it  was  mingled 
with  a  very  strong  infusion  of  Erastianism.  "If  all  the  bishops  and  priests 
in  a  region  were  dead,"  he  says,  it  is  not  forbidden  by  the  divine  law  that 
*'the  king  of  that  region  should  make  bishops  and  priests  to  supply  the 
same. "  He  declares  that  bishops  and  priests  are  originally  and  intrinsi- 
cally the  same  class  of  ministers,  and  that  ordination  and  consecration 
are  "comely  ceremonies,"  but  are  not  necessary.  It  is  true  that  the 
Lutheran  Reformers  had  no  objection  to  episcopacy  as  an  ecclesiastical 
arrangement,  existing Jwre  humano.  Bishops  were  retained  in  Sweden, 
and,  in  the  form  of  superintendents,  in  Denmark.  The  Lutherans-  ex- 
pressed their  view  in  the  Smalcaldic  Articles,  where  they  affirm  the  parity 
of  the  cl6rgy,  declare  episcopacy,  or  the  precedence  of  one  over  others,  a 
human  institution,  and  assert  that  when  ordinary  bishops  become  ene- 
mies of  the  church,  or  refuse  to  ordain,  the  church  can  dispense  with 
them,  since  with  the  church  rests  the  right  to  call,  elect,  and  ordain  her 
ministers.  Melanchthon  wanted  bishops,  and  Luther  would  not  have  ob- 
jected to  them,  as  a  preventive  of  disorder  and  a  counterpoise  to  the 
apprehended  tyranny  of  the  civil  authority.  In  England,  generally  speak- 
ing, the  same  views  prevailed  ;  and  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  bishops 
frequently  went  by  the  name  of  superintendents.  *  The  principles  of 
Calvin  on  this  subject  were  in  harmony  with  those  of  Luther,  Melanchthon, 
and  Cranmer.  I  am  acquainted  with  the  story  of  the  intercepted  letter, 
which  Strype  has  taken  up  in  his  Life  of  Parker  ;  but  I  know  of  no  evi- 
dence to  lead  one  to  think  that  Calvin  wished  to  have  episcopacy  intro- 
duced into  the  Reformed  Churches,  which  had  given  it  up.  But  he 
recommended  the  King  of  Poland  to  retain  bishops,  and  he  felt  no  repug- 
nance to  the  exercise  of  a  presidency,  superintendence,  or  official  superi- 
ority by  one  minister,  who  should  be  appointed  to  such  a  duty  by  the 
church.  Such  a  station  in  reality,  though  not  in  name,  he  held  himself 
at  Geneva.  When  Swiss  divines  came  to  England  they  generally  found 
many  things  which  they  wished  to  see  reformed  ;  but  to  bishops,  as  such, 
they  had  no  repugnance.     When  English  divines  went  to   Strasburg, 

*  See  Strype,  Annals  of  the  Meformation. 


TO    THE    OTHER   PROTESTANT   CHURCHES.  197 

Zurich,  or  Geneva,  they  felt  not  the  slightest  scruples  on  account  of  the 
parity  of  the  clerg-y  which  they  found  to  be  there  established. 

This  was  the  state  of  things  until  the  Puritan  controversy  grew  warm. 
This  controversy  grew  up  partly  out  of  the  fondness  which  English  di- 
vines acquired,  during  their  exile,  for  the  polity  and  worship  of  the  Hel- 
vetic churches.  For  a  long  period  the  advocates  of  the  Anglican  polity 
acted  on  the  defensive.  This  was  not  from  any  spirit  of  forbearance, 
much  less  of  condescension,  toward  the  foreign  churches,  but  because 
they  had  no  thought  of  claiming  for  their  polity  a  jure  divino  sanction, 
and  never  dreamed  that  the  foreign  churches  were  under  any  obligation 
to  adopt  it.  Xjure  dmno  theory  of  church  polity  was  first  broached  on 
the  Puritan  side.  The  Anglicans  opposed  it  by  denying  that  forms  of 
church  government  are  prescribed  by  positive  law.  As  the  conflict  waxed 
hot,  in  the  latter  part  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  a  class  of  defenders  of 
episcopacy  arose,  of  whom  Hooker  is  the  chief,  who  held  that  this  polity 
being,  in  their  view,  apostolic  in  its  origin,  having  generally  prevailed, 
and  being  conducive  to  order,  should  be  everywhere  retained,  unless  pe- 
culiar circumstances  forbid  its  acceptance.  These  writers,  however,  do 
not  assert  the  jure  dbGino  theory,  in  the  proper  sen&e  of  the  terms,  since 
they  recognize  the  foreign  Protestant  churches  as  true  churches,  and  their 
ministry  as  lawfully  ordained.  Substantially  this  position  is  taken  by  sev- 
eral of  the  foremost  episcopal  divines  of  the  seventeenth  century,  as  Arch- 
bishop Ussher  and  Bishops  Hall  and  Stillingfleet.  Ussher  thought  that 
the  churches  of  Holland  had  less  reason  for  dropping  episcopacy  than  the 
churches  of  France  ;  yet  he  says,  "  I  do  profess  that  with  like  affection  1 
should  receive  the  blessed  sacrament  at  the  hands  of  the  Dutch  ministers 
if  I  were  in  Holland,  as  I  should  do  at  the  hands  of  the  French  ministers 
if  I  were  at  Charenton."  Hall  loves  and  reveres  the  Protestant  churches 
abroad  as  the  "  dear  sisters  "  of  the  English  Church. 

Another  element  was  requisite  to  constitute  the  full-blown  doctrine  of 
jure  divino  episcopacy.  This  was  the  sacerdotal  theory  ;  the  doctrine  of 
a  continued,  particular  priesthood,  which  the  Reformers  had  unanimously 
rejected.  It  began  to  be  claimed  that  the  clergy  are,  by  virtue  of  the  ex- 
clusive right  of  the  episcopal  order  to  consecrate  and  ordain,  a  self-per- 
petuating body,  transmitting  through  an  unbroken  channel  the  grace 
that  qualifies  the  ministry  for  their  office  ;  so  that  the  church — the  body 
of  the  laity — have  lost  out  of  their  hands  the  power  to  create  and  ordain 
their  ministers.  This  theory  logically  carried  with  it  the  rupture  of  com- 
munion with  the  non-episcopal  Protestant  bodies,  and  as  far  as  it  was  re- 
ceived, it  effected  this  result. 

As  to  the  alleged  forbearance  of  the  Anglican  Church  and  of  its  divines, 
nothing  is  more  apparent  in  the  history  of  the  English  Reformation  than 
the  deference  felt  and  expressed  by  the  Anglican  leaders  towards  the  Re- 
formers on  the  Continent,  who  led  in  the  great  revolt  against  Rome,  and 
were  the  guides  of  the  Protestant  religious  communities  abroad.     The 


198     THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 

circumstances  of  England,  in  the  long  and  doubtful  struggle  with  the 
Roman  Catholic  party,  naturally  led  the  English  Reformers  to  seek  the 
counsel  and  lean  upon  the  sympathy  of  their  continental  brethren.  Cer- 
tain it  is  that  the  former  perpetually  turned  to  the  foreign  divines  for  ad- 
vice. When  the  troubles  arose  among  the  English  exiles  at  Frankfort 
between  the  adherents  of  the  Liturgy,  led  by  Cox,  afterward  Bishop  of 
Ely,  and  their  opponents^^  led  by  Knox — the  first  manifestation  of  the  dif- 
ferences that  led  to  the  Puritan  controversy — one  minor  point  of  dissen- 
sion was  on  the  question  whether  the  ministers  should  be  equal  in  power, 
or  whether  precedence  should  be  given  to  one  of  them.  *  Both  factions, 
by  a  common  instinct,  appealed  to  Calvin  for  advice.  Afterward,  when 
the  Puritan  controversy  broke  forth  in  England,  both  parties  applied  for 
encouragement  and  support  to  Zurich  and  Geneva.  The  personal  influ- 
ence of  Calvin  and  Bullinger  in  England,  especially  after  Ridley  and 
Cranmer  adopted  the  Swiss  doctrine  of  the  sacrament,  was  for  a  long  time 
well-nigh  authoritative.  Their  treatises  were  the  text- books  in  theology, 
recommended  to  the  clergy,  and  everywhere  in  their  hands.  Their  names 
were  spoken  with  reverence.  We  see  in  the  writings  of  Hooker,  at  a  time 
when  the  contest  with  the  Puritans  was  beginning  to  break  up  this  old 
habit  of  unqualified  respect  for  Calvin,  how  much  of  this  feeling  still  re- 
mains. Hooker  not  only  says  that  Calvin  did  the  best  he  could  in  his 
church  arrangements  at  Geneva,  but  he  pronounces  an  elaborate  and 
glowing  eulogy  upon  him  and  his  writings — an  encomium  which  I  fear 
that  many  who  are  accustomed  to  praise  Hooker  without  stint  have  never 
read.  If  it  be  said  that  in  the  Puritan  conflict  the  Anglican  divines  long 
abstained  from  direct  attacks  on  the  Presbyterian  system,  and  from  ex-  / 
pressions  disparaging  to  the  foreign  churches,  this  is  true.  Whitgift  as- 
serts this  fact,  and  perhaps  may  be  said  to  exemplify  it.  But  this  re- 
serve, due  in  great  part  though  it  was  to  fraternal  feeling,  was  partly  con- 
sequent on  the  old  sentiment  of  respect  for  the  Helvetic  Reformers  and 
their  churches.  This  it  is  which  leads  Whitgift  to  quote  Calvin,  Zwingle, 
Bullinger,  and  the  others,  on  almost  every  page,  not  simply  because  his 
Puritan  adversaries  rested  on  their  authority,  but  because  he  himself  re- 
garded them  with  profound  respect  and  esteem.  In  the  first  three  Prot-" 
estant  reigns  we  do  not  find  the  Anglican  Church,  nor  any  party  in  the  j 
Anglican  Church,  taking  airs  in  reference  to  other  Protestant  bodies.^ 
There  was  no  temptation  to  this  sort  of  arrogance  ;  and  if  it  had  shown 
itself,  it  would  have  met  with  a  swift  rebuke  from  the  great  men  who 
were  guiding  the  fortunes  of  Protestantism  on  the  Continent. 

The  sacerdotal  theory  of  the  ministry  is  responsible  for  the  separation, 
as  far  as  it  exists,  of  the  Church  of  England  from  the  other  Protestant 
churches.     In  England,  however,  the  Puritan  churches  were  shut  out,  on 

*  A  Brief  Discourse  of  the  Troubles  begun  at  Frankfort,  etc.,  pp.  cxxxv., 
cxlvi.  et  aL 


TO    THE    OTPIER    PROTESTANT   CHURCHES.  199 

an  independent  ground,  as  being  schismatical.  The  sacerdotal  theory  is 
a  contribution  of  the  school  of  Laud.  Germs  of  it  may,  perhaps,  be  found 
earlier.  It  may  be  implied  in  isolated  expressions  of  former  Anglican 
writers  ;  but  it  takes  more  than  one  swallow  to  make  a  spring.  Thomas 
Becon,  the  chaplain  of  Cranmer,  earnestly  contends,  in  his  voluminous 
Catechism,  that  "  priest,"  in  the  Eucharistic  service,  is  the  equivalent, 
not  of  "  sacerdos"  but  of  "presbyter,"  and  that  it  means  only  ''minis- 
ter," with  which  term  it  is  there  used  interchangeably.  Passing  on  to 
Hooker,  we  find  him  saying  that  a  minister  may  be  called  a  priest,  as 
Paul  calls  fish  flesh  ;  that  sacrifice  is  ' '  now  no  part  of  the  church  minis- 
t^,"  and  that  though  the  term  "  priest "  is  not  inadmissible,  yet  the 
word  "presbyter"  "doth  seem  more  fit,  and,  in  propriety  of  speech, 
more  agreeable  than  '  priest,'  with  the  drift  of  the  whole  Gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ."  *  I  do  not  concur  with  all  of  Keble's  interpretations  of  Hooker, 
but  I  deem  it  a  mark  of  candor  in  Keble  to  concede  that  there  is  a 
marked  distinction  between  Hooker's  conception  of  episcopacy  and  of  the 
succession,  and  that  of  "  Laud,  Hammond,  and  Leslie  in  the  two  next 
generations."  Hooker's  episcopacy  is  predominantly  one  of  jurisdiction 
and  government ;  the  latter  theory  is  a  full  retrogression  to  sacerdotal- 
ism. 

In  concluding,  I  beg  leave  to  say  that  I  have  written  without  any  ref- 
erence to  any  recent  movements  or  controversies  in  the  Episcopal  Church. 
In  the  evening  service  of  the  Prayer-Book,  after  the  supplication  for  the 
clergy  and  congregations  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  there  follows,  in  the 
simple  but  majestic  style  of  the  Liturgy,  an  impressive  prayer  for  the 
"holy  church  universal,"  that  "all  who  profess  and  call  themselves 
Christians  "  may  be  led  aright.  In  this  prayer,  with  its  catholic  idea  of 
the  church,  as  well  as  in  the  supplication  that  precedes  it,  I  can  heartily 
join. 

In  the  foregoing  letter,  reference  is  made  to  the  opinions 
of  Ussher,  Hall,  and  Stillingfieet.  The  most  learned  de- 
fender of  episcopacy  in  the  seventeenth  century  was  James 
Ussher,  Archbishop  of  Armagh  and  Primate  of  Ireland. 
From  early  life  he  had  an  inextinguishable  thirst  for  the 
study  of  history  and  -antiquities.  This  taste  was  awakened 
and  stimulated  by  a  passage  in  Cicero,  where  he  says: 
"  Nescire  quid  cmtea  quam  natus  sis  acciderit  id  est  serrvper 
esse  jmerum " — ^not  to  know  what  happened  before  you 
were  born  is  to  be  always  a  boy.     The  struggle  that  was  go- 


*  Hooker  (Keble's  ed.),  ii.,  469,  470. 


200     THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 

ing  on  between  Protestantism  and  Eomanism  in  the  field  of 
argument,  and  especially  Stapleton's  Fortress  of  the  Faith^ 
2i  Roman  Catholic  polemical  book,  in  which  the  antiquity  of 
the  E-omish  creed  was  maintained,  in  opposition  to  the 
alleged  novelty  of  the  Reformed  Church,  impelled  Ussher  to 
undertake  the  reading  of  the  entire  body  of  patristic  litera- 
ture— a  task  which  he  is  said  to  have  accomplished  in  eigh- 
teen years.  By  this  means  he  armed  himself  for  conflict 
with  the  advocates  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  for  the  mo^ 
learned  of  whom  he  was  more  than  a  match.  ]^o  one  can 
examine  any  of  Ussher's  works — his  Antiquities  of  the 
British  Churches,  for  example — and  not  be  struck  with  the 
vast  extent  of  his  erudition.  Truly  there  were  giants  in 
those  days. 

Ussher  first  printed  in  1641  two  short  essays  on  the  Epis- 
copal controversy.  The  first  was  entitled  TJie  Original 
of  Bishops  and  Metropolitans  ;  the  second  was  The  Judg- 
Tnent  of  Dr.  Bainoldes  touching  the  Original  of  Epis- 
copacy, more  largely  Confirmed  out  of  Antiquity.'^  The 
sort  of  episcopacy  which  Ussher  set  out  to  uphold  may  be 
seen  from  this  extract  from  The  Judgment  of  Rainoldes, 
which  is  given  by  Ussher  himself  at  the  outset  of  his  sec- 
ond essay :  "  When  elders  were  ordained  by  the  apostles  in 
every  church  to  feed  the  flock  of  Christ,  whereof  the  Holy 
Ghost  had  made  them  overseers,  they,  to  the  intent  they 
might  the  better  do  it,  by  common  counsel  and  consent,  did 
use  to  assemble  themselves  and  meet  together.  In  the 
which  meetings,  for  the  more  orderly  handling  and  conclud- 
ing of  things  pertaining  to  their  charge,  they  chose  one 
amongst  them  to  be  the  president  of  their  company  and  mod- 
erator of  their  actions."  This  arrangement  for  a  presidency 
in  the  board  of  elders  or  ministers  in  a  church  was  counte- 
nanced and  sanctioned,  Ussher  maintains,  by  the  apostles. 
His  great  arguments   are  the  angels  of  the  Apocalypse, 

*  Ussher's  Works,  vol.  vii. 


TO   THE   OTHER   PROTESTANT    CHURCHES.  201 

whom  he  takes  for  bishops  or  head  pastors — contrary  to  the 
prevailing  view  of  the  best  critics  now,  inckiding  Dr.  Light- 
foot  :  and  tlie  Ignatian  Epistles,  which  were  then  fresh  and 
seem  to  have  made  a  strong  impression  on  Ussher's  mind. 
It  is  this  mild  sort  of  episcopacy,  and  nothing  more — a  su- 
perintendence or  presidency  exercised  by  one  presbyter  over 
his  peers — that  the  archbishop  tries  to  prove  to  have  had  an 
apostolical  origin.  •  But  even  for  this  system  he  does  not 
claim  smyjus  divinum  ;  that^  is,  a  church  can  exist  without 
it.  He  nowhere  pretends  that  a  church  cannot  exist  with- 
out it.  It  was  this  form  of  synodal  episcopacy  which  was 
drawn  out  by  Ussher  in  writing,  and  which  Baxter  and  his 
associates  proposed,  at  the  time  of  the  Savoy  Conference, 
as  a  basis  for  agreement  between  the  Presbyterian  and  Epis- 
copal parties.  Apostolic  succession,  regarded  in  the  light 
of  a  vehicle  for  the  transmission  of  grace  and  as  indispensa- 
ble to  the  existence  of  a  lawful  ministry,  is  something  ut- 
terly foreign  to  Ussher's  whole  theory  and  w^ay  of  thinking. 
It  is  governmental,  not  sacerdotal  episcopacy  that  he  favors. 
"The  intrinsical  power  of  ordaining,"  says  Ussher,  "pro- 
ceedeth  not  from  jurisdiction,  but  only  from  order.  But  a 
presbyter  hath  the  same  order  in  specie  with  a  bishop — ergo, 
a  presbyter  hath  equally  an  intrinsical  power  to  give  orders 
and  is  equal  to  him  in  the  power  of  order ;  the  bishop  hav- 
ing no  higher  degree  in  respect  of  intention  or  extension  of 
the  character  of  order,  though  he  hath  a  higher  degree — 
i.  6.,  a  more  eminent  place  in  respect  of  authority  and  juris- 
diction in  spiritual  regiment." 

Baxter,  in  his  Life,  relates  an  interesting  conversation 
which  he  had  with  Ussher  on  this  subject.  "I  asked  him, 
also,  his  judgment  about  the  validity  of  presbyters'  ordina- 
tion. Which  he  asserted,  and  told  me  that  the  king 
[Charles  I.]  asked  him,  in  the  Isle  of  Wight,  wherever  he 
found  in  antiquity  that  presbyters  alone  ordained  any ;  and 
that  he  answered,  I  can  show  your  Majesty  more,  even 
where  presbyters  alone  successively  ordained  bishops,  and 
9* 


202  THE   RELATION    OF   THE    CIIUKCH    OF   ENGLAND 

instanced  in  Hierom's  [Jerome's]  words  of  the  presbyters  of 
Alexandria  choosing  and  making  their  own  bishops  from  the 
days  of  Mark  till  Herodius  and  Dionysius." 

Respecting  the  foreign  Protestant  churches  Ussher  writes 
thus :  "  I  have  ever  declared  my  opinion  to  be  that  J^jpisco- 
jpus  et  Presbyter  gradu  tantum  differunt,  own  or  dine,  and" 
consequently  that  in  places  where  bishops  cannot  be  had  the 
ordination  of  presbyters  standeth  valid ;  yet,  on  the  other 
side,  holding,  as  I  do,  that  a  bishop  hath  a  superiority  in  de- 
gree over  a  presbyter,  you  may  easily  judge  that  the  ordina- 
tion made  by  such  presbyters  as  have  severed  themselves 
from  those  bishops,  unto  whom  they  have  sworn  canonical 
obedience,  cannot  possibly  by  me  be  excused  from  being 
schismatical.  And  howsoever  I  must  needs  think  that  the 
churches  which  have  no  bishops  are  thereby  become  very 
much  defective  in  their  government,  and  that  the  churches 
in  France,  who,  living  under  a  Popish  power,  cannot  do 
what  they  would,  are  more  excusable  in  this  defect  than  the 
Low  Countries,  that  live  under  a  free  state,  yet  for  testify- 
ing my  communion  with  these  churches  (which  I  do  love  and 
honor  as  true  members  of  the  Church  Universal),  I  do  pro- 
fess that  with  like  affection  I  should  receive  the  blessed 
sacrament  at  the  hands  of  the  Dutch  ministers,  if  I  were  in 
Holland,  as  I  should  do  at  the  hands  of  the  French  minis- 
ters, if  I  were  in  Charenton."  "  The  agreement  or  dis- 
agreement in  radical  or  fundamental  doctrines,  not  the  con- 
sonancy  or  dissonancy  in  the  particular  points  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal government,  is  with  me  (and  I  hope  with  every  man 
that  mindeth  peace)  the  rule  of  adhering  to  or  receding  from 
the  communion  of  any  church."  *  Considering  that  Ussher 
was  a  contemporary  of  Laud,  and  lived  in  the  heat  and  fer- 
ment of  the  Puritan  controversy,  these  extracts  do  credit  at 
once  to  his  learning  and  to  the  native  liberality  of  his  mind. 
They  show,  first,  that  he  considered  the  episcopate  an  ar- 

*  Works^  Appendix,  vii. 


TO    THE    OTHER   PROTESTANT   CHURCHES.  203 

rangement  of  government,  not  a  vehicle  for  the  transmission 
of  grace ;  secondly,  that  a  polity  that  dispenses  with  the 
episcopate  he  considered  less  desirable,  but  in  given  circum- 
stances admissible;  thirdly,  that  he  had  no  disposition  to 
break  off  communion  with  the  other  Protestant  bodies 
abroad.  The  distinction  which  Ussher  makes  between  Dis- 
senters or  Separatists  in  England  and  the  foreign  churches 
is  worthy  of  special  attention.  His  objection  to  the  Puri- 
tans was  founded  not  on  their  polity  in  itself  considered,  but 
on  what  he  considered  the  schismatical  character  of  their 
movement.  They  had  no  just  ground,  as  he  thought,  for 
renouncing  the  government  of  the  Church  of  England.  The 
Dutch  and  French  Churches  he  honored  and  loved.  The 
Puritans,  under  substantially  the  same  polity,  he  could  not 
approve  and  recognize.  It  required  another  step  (and  a 
very  long  one)  to  be  taken  before  the  High  Church  ground 
could  be  reached,  where  the  absolute  necessity  of  Episcopal 
ordination  is  affirmed  and  all  the  Protestant  churches  of 
Europe  are  cast  out  of  fellowship.  As  the  Puritans  and 
the  Dutch  were  alike  among  the  first  settlers  in  this  country, 
and  as  we  have  no  national  church,  it  must  be  somewhat 
difficult,  on  Ussher's  principles,  to  make  out  a  case  of  schism 
against  the  churches  which  they  here  established. 

Bishop  Hall,  being  then  Dean  of  l^orwich,  had  sat,  as 
one  of  the  deputies  sent  by  James  I.  from  the  Church  of 
England,  in  the  Synod  of  Dort.  In  various  writings— for 
example,  in  his  Apology  against  the  Brownists — he  had  ex- 
pressed his  affection  and  veneration  for  the  Protestant 
churches  abroad,  the  '*  sisters "  of  the  Church  of  England, 
as  he  repeatedly  styles  them.  The  expulsion  of  episcopacy 
from  Scotland,  and  the  formation  of  the  Solenm  League  and 
Covenant,  in  1638,  sharpened  his  polemical  feeling  against 
the  opponents  of  the  Episcopal  polity.  At  the  request  of 
Laud,  he  wrote  his  work  on  the  Divine  Right  of  Episcopacy. 
Laud,  at  the  outset,  was  dissatisfied  with  the  positions  which 
he  proposed  to  take ;  for  he  was  careful  to  avoid  all  con- 


204     THE  EELATION  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 

demnation  of  the  churches  abroad.*  How  far  Hall  fell 
short  of  the  jure  dwino  doctrine,  in  the  proper  sense,  may 
be  seen  from  the  following  passage  in  his  subsequent  De- 
feiwe  of  the  Hamble  Eemomtrance  for  Liturgy  and  Episco- 
jpacy : 

"  The  imputation  pretended  to  be  cast  upon  all  the  Reformed  churches 
which  want  this  government,  I  endeavored  so  to  satisfy,  that  I  might 
justly  decline  the  envy  which  is  intended  thereby  to  be  raised  against 
us :  for  which  cause  I  professed  that  we  do  '  love  and  honor  those  our 
sister  churches  as  the  dear  spouse  of  Christ,'  and  give  zealous  testimonies 
of  our  well-wishing  to  them.  Your  uncharitableness  offers  to  choke  me 
with  these  scandalous  censures  and  disgraceful  terms,  which  some  of 
ours  have  let  fall  upon  those  churches  and  their  eminent  professors; 
which  I  confess  it  is  more  easy  to  be  sorry  for  than  on  some  hands  to  ex- 
cuse.    The  error  of  a  few  may  not  be  imputed  to  all. 

"  My  just  defence  is  that  no  such  consequent  can  be  drawn  from  our 
opinion ;  forasmuch  as  the  divine  or  apostolical  right,  which  we  hold, 
goes  not  so  high  as  if  there  were  an  express  command,  that  upon  an  ab- 
solute necessity  there  must  be  either  episcopacy  or  no  church  ;  but  so  far 
only,  that  it  both  may  and  ought  to  be.  How  fain  would  you  here  find 
me  in  a  contradiction !  while  I  onewhere  reckon  episcopacy  among  mat- 
ters essential  to  the  church ;  anotherwhere  deny  it  to  be  of  the  essence 
thereof  !  Wherein  you  willingly  hide  your  eyes,  that  you  may  not  see 
the  distinction  that  I  make  expressly  betwixt  the  being  and  the  well-being 
of  a  church ;  affirming  that  those  churches  to  whom  this  power  and  fac- 
ulty is  denied  lose  nothing  of  the  true  essence  of  a  church,  though  they 
miss  something  of  their  glory  and  perfection.  No,  brethren;  it  is  enough 
for  some  of  your  friends  to  hold  their  discipline  altogether  essential  to  the 
very  being  of  a  church  ;  we  dare  not  be  so  zealous." 

' '  The  question  which  you  ask  concerning  the  reason  of  the  different 
entertainment  given  in  our  church  to  priests  converted  to  us  from  Rome, 
and  to  ministers  who  in  Queen  Mary's  days  had  received  imposition  of 
hands  in  Reformed  churches  abroad,  is  merely  personal,  neither  can 
challenge  my  decision.  Only  I  give  you  these  two  answers.  That  what 
fault  soever  may  be  in  the  easy  admittance  of  those  who  have  received 
Romish  orders,  the  sticking  at  the  admission  of  our  brethren  returning 
from  Reformed  Churches,  was  not  in  case  of  ordination,  but  of  institution: 
they  had  been  acknowledged  ministers  of  Christy  without  any  other  hands 
laid  upon  them  ;  but,  according  to  the  laws  of  our  land,  they  were  not 

*  See  the  correspondence,  in  Hall's  Works ^  vol.  x.  Also,  Lawson's  Life 
of  Laud,  ii. ,  334  seq. 


TO   THE   OTHER   PKOTESTANT   CHUECHES.  205 

perhaps  capable  of  institution  to  a  benefice  unless  tbey  were  so  qualified 
as  the  statutes  of  this  realm  do  require.  And,  secondly,  I  know  those, 
more  than  one,  that  by  virtue  only  of  that  ordination  which  they  have 
brought  with  them  from  other  Reformed  churches,  have  enjoyed  spiritual 
promotions  and  livings,  without  any  exception  against  the  lawfulness  of 
their  calling."  * 

Bishop  Hall  wrote  his  Humble  Hemonstrance  in  1640-41, 
and  the  defence  of  it,  from  which  this  extract  is  taken,  after- 
wards. Nothing  can  be  more  definite  and  satisfactory  than 
the  proof  which  it  affords  that  the  ordination  of  the  foreign 
churches  was  then  allowed  to  be  lawful  and  sufficient.  Dif- 
ficulties were  •  sometimes  raised  about  their  institution ;  but, 
notwithstanding  these  difficulties,  Hall  knew  of  instances  in 
which  they  were  admitted  to  benefices. 

Few  of  the  divines  of  England  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
that  golden  age  of  English  theology,  equal  in  vigor  of  rea- 
soning powers  and  in  extent  of  erudition,  not  to  speak  of 
perspicuity  and  force  of  style,  Edward  Stillingfleet,  Bishop 
of  Xorwich.  His  Orlgines  Sacrce  may  be  somewhat  anti- 
quated in  respect  to  its  learning,  through  the  wider  reach  of 
oriental  studies  in  modern  days ;  but  in  power  of  argument 
and  in  the  mtellectual  mastery  of  the*  theme,  it  remains  a 
noble  defence  of  the  Christian  faith  and  a  worthy  memorial 
of  the  genius  and  attainments  of  its  author.  Stillingfleet 
did  not  fear  to  measure  swords  with  Locke  on  questions  of 
metaphysics ;  and  it  was  the  letter  of  the  Bishop  of  Norwich 
that  drew  from  the  philosopher  the  nearest  approach  to  an 
explicit  assertion  of  an  a  priori  source  of  knowledge,  which 
really  goes  beyond  the  function  of  sensation  and  reflection. 

When  Stillingfleet  was  only  twenty-four  years  of  age  and 
Rector  of  Sutton,  he  published  The  Irenicum,  a  Weapon- 
saJ/ve  for  the  ChurcNs  Wounds.  The  second  edition  ap- 
peared in  1662,  the  memorable  year  when  tho  Act  of  Uni- 
formity was  passed,  by  which  two  thousand  of  the  ministers 

♦Hall's  Works,  ix.,  355,  356. 


206     THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHUKCH  OF  ENGLAND 

of  England,  and  tliose  among  the  best  for  knowledge,  piety, 
eloquence,  and  pastoral  fidelity,  were  driven  from  tlieir  par- 
ishes, and  thrown  into  the  ranks  of  non-conformity.  The 
Irenicum  is  directed  against  the  assumed  divine  right  of 
particular  forms  of  church  government.  Among  the  mot- 
toes on  the  title-page  is  a  sentence  of  Casaubon,  in  which  it 
is  asserted  that  if  a  proper  discrimination  were  made  be- 
tween "  divine  right  ^^—jus  divinmn — and  positive  or  eccle- 
siastical law,  controversy  among  good  men  would  cease  to  be 
bitter  or  of  long  duration.  This  sentence  is  followed  by  an- 
other from  Grotius  of  the  same  purport.  Stillingfleet  aims 
to  win  non-conformists  over  to  the  established  church  by 
demonstrating  that  there  is  no  definite  form  of  government 
prescribed  to  the  church  ;  that  neither  the  Episcopal  nor  the 
Presbyterian  system  can  claim  divine,  or  exclusive,  authority ; 
and  that,  therefore,  there  is  np  reason  w^hy  a  dissenter  should 
not  reconcile  himself  to  the  system  of  the  English  diurch, 
whatever  may  be  his  preference  in  the  matter.  He  seeks  to 
make  good  his  thesis,  first  by  an  inquiry  into  the  dictates  of 
the  law  of  nature,  and,  secondly,  by  an  examination  of  posi- 
tive or  revealed  law ;  his  aim  being  under  each  head  to  dis- 
prove the  claim  to  a  sanction  from  either  source  for  the  ex- 
clusive pretensions  of  the  episcopal  or  the  non-episcopal 
method  of  organization.  Later  in  life,  Stillingfleet  thought 
that,  from  a  desire  for  peace,  he  had  conceded  too  much  to 
dissenters ;  but  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  he  ever  re- 
nounced the  main  principles  of  his  work,  or  came  to  question 
the  justice  of  its  principal  arguments.  Taken  as  a  whole,  it 
is  one  of  the  finest  pieces  of  historical  and  theological  rea- 
soning w^ithin  the  compass  of  English  theological  literature. 
We  advert  to  Stillingfleet's  famous  Irenicum,  in  this 
place,  chiefly  in  order  to  call  attention  to  his  excellent  state- 
ment of  the  position  of  the  Anglican  Reformers  and  di- 
vines before  his  time,  and  to  the  absence  in  them  of  the 
jure  divino  theory  of  episcopacy — the  theory  that  bishops 
are  indispensable  to  the  constitution  of  a  church,  and  to  the 


TO    THE    OTHER   PROTESTANT   CHURCHES.  207 

validity  of  orders.  This  lucid  and  correct  statement  is  given 
in  chapter  viii.  of  Part  II.  He  does  not  confine  himseH  to 
English  divines,  but  shows  "  that  the  most  eminent  divines 
of  the  Eeformation,"  at  home  and  abroad,  "  did  never  con- 
ceive any  one  form  of  church  government  necessary."  He 
proves  his  proposition ;  first,  by  referring  "  to  those  who 
make  the  form  of  church  government  mutable,  and  to  de- 
pend upon  the  wisdom  of  the  magistrate  and  of  the  church." 
This  he  declares  has  been  the  opinion  of  most  divines  of  the 
Church  of  England  since  the  Eeformation.  He  quotes,  in 
fuU,  Cranmer's  Erastian  declarations,  which  go  so  far  as  to 
dispense  with  the  necessity  of  ordination  altogether.  Arch- 
bishop Whitgift,  Bishop  Bridges,  Hooker,  and  others  it  is 
shown,  advocated  the  same  general  view.  Secondly,  he  re- 
fers to  the  divines  who  had  believed  in  the  original  parity 
of  the  clergy,  yet  considered  episcopacy  lawful.  Here  are 
placed  Calvin,  Beza,  Melanchthon,  and  others.  Thirdly,  he 
enumerates  those  who  judge  episcopacy  to  be  the  primitive 
form,  yet  look  not  on  it  as  necessary.  Here  come  Bishop 
Jewel,  Fulke,  Field,  and  many  more.  All  these  men  who 
are  named  under  the  three  heads,  whatever  were  their  views 
respecting  the  origin  and  antiquity  of  episcopacy,  considered 
it  neither  necessary  on  the  one  hand,  nor  wrong  and  intol- 
erable on  the  other.  They  held  it  to  be  one  of  various  ad- 
missible systems  of  polity,  neither  of  which  is  necessary  to 
the  existence  of  a  church,  and  either  of  which  is  of  such  a 
character  that  a  Christian  may  live  under  it  and  submit  to 
it  with  a  good  conscience.  There  are  slight  errors  in  Stil- 
lingfleet's  classification.  Jewel  does  not  maintain  the  apos- 
tolic institution  of  episcopacy,  as  distinct  from  the  office  of 
presbyters,  but  intimates  that  the  distinction  rests  on  human 
authority  alone.  Generally  speaking,  however,  StiUing- 
fleet's  historical  statements  are  correct,  and  they  present  a 
most  conclusive  refutation  of  the  High  Church  assumption 
that  the  fathers  of  the  Anglican  Protestant  Church  denied 
the  validity  of  the  orders  of  non-episcopal  churches.     The 


208     THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHUECH  OF  ENGLAND 

whole  treatise  of  Stillingfleet  contains  wholesome  reading 
for  partisans  of  whatever  stripe. 

A  part  of  another  letter  to  the  Tribune^  in  reply  to  criti- 
cisms of  an  Episcopal  clergyman,  is  reproduced  here,  for 
the  reason  that  it  handles  a  special  theory,  brought  forward 
to  account  for  the  ecclesiastical  sympathy  between  England 
and  the  Continent  in  the  period  following  the  Reforma- 
tion. 

Your  correspondent  dwells  on  the  fact  that  the  first  generation  of 
preachers  in  the  Protestant  churches  were  mostly  ordained  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church— as  if  the  question  about  the  necessity  of  Episcopal  or- 
dination was  not  a  practical  one.  "Their  orders,"  he  says,  "were  all 
alike  to  begin  with."  Were  not  hundreds  of  new  preachers  going  forth 
from  Wittenberg,  and  afterward  from  Geneva  ?  But,  apart  from  this 
fact,  the  difficulty  in  the  way  of  all  such  pleas  as  your  correspondent 
makes  on  this  point  is  that  the  English  Reformers  do  express  themselves 
explicitly  on  these  questions.  They  declare  their  opinions  without  am- 
biguity. They  knew,  taoreover,  perfectly  well  the  constitution  of  the 
Lutheran  Churches,  and  of  the  Churches  of  Geneva,  Zurich,  Holland, 
France,  and  other  Protestant  countries,  and  they  make  their  constitution 
no  barrier  in  the  way  of  fraternal  recognition  and  church  fellowship.  I 
have  not  been  so  heedless  as  to  confound  personal  friendship  with  eccle- 
siastical fellowship ;  but,  apart  from  the  direct  evidence  in  the  case,  the 
personal  intimacy  of  the  English  and  the  foreign  divines  involves,  under  the 
circumstances,  convincing  proof  of  such  ecclesiastical  fellowship.  Your 
correspondent  criticises  my  statement  of  the  opinion  of  Jewel.  If  he 
will  turn  to  the  seventh  book  of  Hooker's  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  he  will 
find  a  reference  to  Jewel's  belief  on  the  origin  of  bishops.  Hooker  speaks 
of  that  opinion  "which  many  have  thought  good  to  follow,  and  which 
myself  did  sometimes  judge  a  great  deal  more  probable  than  now  I  do, 
merely  that  after  the  apostles  were  deceased,  churches  did  agree  among 
themselves,  for  preservation  of  peace  and  order,  to  make  one  presbyter 
in  each  city  chief  over  the  rest."  In  the  margin  Hooker  refers  to  Jewel 
among  those  who  held  this  theory,  and  to  his  reply  to  Harding,  It  is 
probable  that  Hooker  knew  the  opinions  of  his  revered  master,  and  the 
proper  interpretation  of  the  reply  to  Harding  quite  as  well  as  anybody  at 
the  present  day. 

The  insinuation,  by  whomsoever  made,  that  the  recognition  of  the 
foreign  Protestant  churches  and  of  their  ministry,  by  the  bishops  and 
divines  of  the  Church  of  England,  was  owing  to  the  excitement  or  dis- 
order of  the  times,  or  to  the  immature  form  of  the  polity  of  the  various 
Protestant  bodies,  is  in  violation  of  historical  truth.     The  contest  with 


TO    THE    OTHER    PROTESTANT    CHURCHES.  209 

the  Roman  Catholics  caused  all  the  questions  connected  with  ordination 
to  be  freely  and  fully  discussed.  This  recognition  was  far  from  being 
confined  to  the  first  three  Protestant  reigns.  There  is  no  more  honored 
name  among  the  prelates  of  the  seventeenth  century  than  that  of  Bishop 
Hall,  the  author  of  The  Contemplations.  In  his  Apology  against 
Brownists  (fol.  ed.,  p.  498),  Bishop  Hall  says:  '*I  reverence  from  my 
soul  (so  doth  our  church,  their  dear  sister)  those  worthy  foreign  churches 
which  have  chosen  and  followed  those  forms  of  outward  government  that 
are  every  way  fittest  for  their  own  condition."  In  another  place,  after 
referring  to  the  recognition  of  the  English  Church  by  the  foreign  di- 
vines, and  to  the  fact  that  Laski  "  was  the  allowed  bishop  of  our  first  Re- 
formed strangers  in  this  land" — that  is,  pastor  of  one  of  the  foreign 
churches  in  England  * — Bishop  Hall  says  :  "  These  sisters  have  learned 
to  differ,  and  yet  to  love  and  reverence  each  other ;  and  in  these  cases  to 
enjoy  their  own  forms  without  prescription  of  necessity  or  censure." 
Hall,  as  is  well  known,  was  employed  by  Laud,  at  a  later  time,  to  de- 
fend episcopacy  against  the  Puritans ;  and  Laud  was  dissatisfied  with 
the  concessions  which  even  at  that  day  he  proposed  to  make  in  favor  of 
the  foreign  churches.  It  would  be  interesting  to  trace  the  rise  and  prog- 
ress of  the  sacerdotal  theory  of  episcopacy  in  the  English  Church,  and 
to  show  how  it  gradually  supplanted,  in  the  minds  of  a  large  part  of  that 
church,  the  old  governmental  theory  which  was  held  by  the  Reformers, 
and,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  by  such  men  as  Ussher  and  Stillingfleefc. 
But  even  the  hospitable  Tiibune  would  hardly  find  room  for  a  full  treat- 
ment of  this  theme.  Episcopacy  was  first  advocated  in  the  English 
Church  as  a  tolerable,  expedient,  a  very  ancient,  and,  by  some,  as  the 
most  ancient  form  of  polity.  Then  it  came  to  be  defended  as  decidedly 
the  best  form,  and  the  only  legitimate  one  where  circumstances  will  per- 
mit it  to  be  adopted.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  Hooker.  Then  followed, 
in  the  era  of  Laud,  the  High  Church  or  sacerdotal  theory.  These  facts 
are  notorious ;  they  are  familiar  to  students  of  English  history.  They 
are  conceded  by  writers  of  the  Anglican  Church  of  the  highest  repute  for 
knowledge  and  impartiality. 

Why  not  frankly  and  honestly  admit  them,  as  Keble  does,  instead  of 
resorting  to  various  and  incongruous  methods  of  evading  them  ?  It  was 
the  contest  with  the  Puritans  that  developed  among  their  opponents  the 
jure  divino  doctrine.  The  Puritans  first  set  up  this  exclusive  claim  for 
their  own  system. f     The  leading  antagonists  of  the  Puritans,  for  a  long 

*  Laski  was  superintendent  of  the  Churches  of  the  German,  Italian, 
and  French  Protestants,  residing  in  London. 

f  It  should  be  said,  however,  that  Presbyterians  did  not  generally  ques- 
tion the  validity  of  ordination  by  bishops,  or  deny  that  Episcopal  minis- 
ters may  lawfully  administer  the  sacraments.  The  Episcopal  system  they 
asserted  to  be  inconsistent  with  Scripture. 


210     THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHUKOH  OF  ENGLAND 

period,  fought  them  by  asserting- that  there  is  no  particular  form  of  polity 
prescribed  in  the  Bible  for  all  time,  and  therefore  of  perpetual  obligation. 
They  took  substantially  the  ground  which  Stillingfleet  assumed  in  his 
Irenicum.  Even  Hooker  makes  room  for  the  foreign  churches,  and 
founds  his  whole  discussion  on  the  distinction  between  eternal  and  posi- 
tive laws.  He  distinctly  aflBrms  (in  b.  vii.  Keble's  ed.,  vol.  iii.,  p.  165) 
that  the  church,  for  urgent  cause,  by  general  consent,  is  competent  to 
take  government  away  from  the  hands  of  her  bishops.  By  degrees  de- 
fenders of  episcopacy  imitated  their  opponents,  and  asserted  for  their 
own  system  a  jure  divino  sanction  and  an  exclusive  right.  The  Puritans, 
thrown  on  the  defensive,  generally  retreated  to  the  old  position  of  their 
adversaries,  and  contended  that  no  form  of  polity  is  binding  on  Christians 
forever.  In  this  long  combat,  Hamlet  and  Laertes  have  exchanged  rapiers — 
an  event  that  not  unfrequently  occurs  in  political  and  theological  warfare. 
Your  correspondent  calls  for  the  proof  of  a  recognition,  by  conciliar  or 
formal  synodal  action  of  the  Church  of  England,  of  any  orders  but  Epis- 
copal. In  view  of  the  known  action  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  the 
past,  and  the  avowed  opinions  of  her — I  had  almost  said  "founders" 
— Reformers  and  noblest  divines,  one  may  well  inquire  whether  the  bur- 
den of  proof  is  not  on  the  other  side.  By  what  conciliar  or  synodal  ac- 
tion have  the  orders  of  other  Protestant  churches  been  discredited  ?  It 
may  be  said  that  ministers  who  have  not  been  ordained  by  bishops,  are 
reordained  when  they  pass  over  to  the  Episcopal  Church.  But  this  pro- 
ceeding may  perhaps  be  defended  by  some  on  the  Low  Church  ground, 
taken  by  Archbishop  Leighton,  when  he  was  ordained  a  second  time  as 
presbyter^  viz.  :  that  ordination  is  merely  a  ceremony  of  induction  to  the 
ministry  and  service  of  a  particular  church,  and  may,  therefore,  be  re- 
peated.    These  are  questions,  however,  with  which  I  have  nothing  to  do. 

A  student  derives  from  converse  with  the  documentary 
sources  of  various  kinds,  which  pertain  to  any  period  of  his- 
tory, impressions  respecting  the  state  of  things,  which  may 
be  verified  by  adducing  special  proofs,  but  which  no  single 
items  of  evidence,  however  convincing,  can  transfer  to  the 
reader  in  their  full  force. 

In  illustrating  the  intimate  relations  of  the  Church  of 
England  with  the  Helvetic  Churches,  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  we  have  more  than  once  referred  to  the  correspond- 
ence of  the  Eeformers.*     There  are  a  multitude  of  letters 

*  Two  volumes,  published  by  the  Parker  Soc. ,  contain  letters  during 
the  reigns  of  Henry  VIII.,  Edward  VI.,  and  Mary.  Two  additional  vol- 
umes, united  in  one  in  the  second  edition,  cover  the  reign  of  Elizabeth. 


TO    THE    OTFIEK    PROTESTANT    CHURCHES.  211 

written  by  Cranmer,  Coverdale,  Hooper,  Cox,  Horn,  Pilk- 
ington,  Sampson,  Sandys,  Jewel,  Foxe,  Parkhurst,  Grindal, 
Humphrey,  and  other  reformers,  bishops,  and  leading  di- 
vines, of  the  Church  of  England,  to  Calvin,  Melanchthon, 
Bucer,  BuUinger,  Gualter,  Martyr,  and  other  continental 
divines,  with  their  letters  in  return.  This  correspondence 
stretches  over  an  interval  extending  from  the  establishment 
of  Protestantism  in  England  to  the  closing  part  of  Elizabeth's 
reign.  Yet  in  all  these  free,  unreserved  communications, 
in  which  the  differences  among  Protestants,  as  on  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Lord's  Supper,  are  fi*equently  considered,  there 
is  no  hint  of  any  trouble,  alienation,  or  want  of  sympathy, 
on  account  of  the  difference  of  the  English  polity  from  that 
of  the  continental  churches.  The  authors  are  engaged  in  a 
common  cause,  fighting  under  a  common  banner,  and  the 
question  of  episcopacy  does  not  excite  a  ripple  of  discontent 
with  one  another.  This  silence,  under  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances, is  a  more  impressive  proof  of  ecclesiastical  sympathy 
than  any  overt  declaration  would  be.  Why,  as  late  as  1573, 
Sandys,  then  Bishop  of  London  and,  afterwards.  Archbishop 
of  York,  reports  to  Bullinger,  the  pastor  of  Zurich,  the  plat- 
form of  the  party  which  was  aiming  at  the  destruction  of 
episcopacy,  and  says  :  "  I  anxiously  desire,  most  learned  sir, 
to  hear  your  opinion,  and  those  of  masters  Gualter,  Simler, 
and  the  rest  of  the  brethren,  respecting  these  things ;  which 
for  my  own  part  I  shall  willingly  follow,  as  being  sound  and 
agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God.  For  if  the  whole  matter  in 
controversy  were  left  to  your  arbitration,  it  would  doubtless 
much  contribute  to  the  peace  of  our  church.  These  good 
men  are  crying  out  that  they  have  all  the  reformed  churches 
on  their  side."  * 

In  1580,  a  prayer  was  issued,  by  public  authority,  to  be 
used  on  Fridays  in  the  churches  of  England,  in  which,  after 
a  prayer  for  the  church,  we  read  :   "  And  herein  (good  Lord) 

*  Zurich  Letters^  p.  440. 


212     THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 

by  special  name  we  beseech  Thee  for  the  churches  of 
France,  Flanders,  and  of  sucli  other  places."  Then  follows 
a  supplication  for  "  this  church  of  England."  In  the  pray- 
ers to  be  used  by  the  English  armies,  who  are  fighting  by 
the  side  of  the  Huguenots  in  France,  and  in  the  prayers  to 
be  offered  at  home  for  their  success,  the  Protestants  of 
France  are  spoken  of  as  the  members  and  representatives  of 
the  true  church,  in  arms  against  Antichrist.  We  "most 
heartily  beseech  Thee,  through  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ, 
our  Saviour,  to  protect  and  strengthen  thy  servants,  our 
brethren  in  France,  that  are  now  ready  to  fight  for  the 
glory  of  thy  name."  "  Go  before  them,  fight  the  battles  of 
thy  children,  and  subdue  their  enemies  :  so  shall  that  proud 
generation  have  no  cause  to  exult  over  thy  true  church,  and 
over  thy  servants,"  etc.* 

The  churches  of  the  foreigners,  which  were  established  in 
London,  under  the  auspices  of  Edward  I.,  furnish  an  illustra- 
tion of  the  sentiments  of  the  English  reformers  towards 
their  foreign  brethren.  The  foreigners  in  London  were  to 
have  four  ministers,  under  the  superintendence  of  John  a 
Lasco.  In  the  letters  patent  which  were  granted,  in  the 
fourth  year  of  Edward,  to  these  ministers,  and  constituting 
them  a  coi-poration,  the  motive  assigned  for  the  act  is  the 
duty  of  kings  to  care  for  the  diffusion  "  of  pure  and  uncor- 
rupted  religion,"  and  for  the  preservation  of  a  church  "  con- 
stituted in  truly  Christian  and  apostolic  doctrines  and  rites." 
The  grant  is  made  with  the  intent  that  the  gospel  may  be 
preached,  and  the  sacraments  administered  "  according  to  the 
Word  of  God  and  apostolical  observance,  by  the  ministers  of 
the  Germans  and  of  the  other  foreigners."  f  Lasco  states, 
in  a  letter  to  the  Iving  of  Poland,  that  Edward,  his  council, 
and  Cranmer  were  zealously  favorable  to  his  enterprise. 
The  king  hoped,  through   the  influence   of  these  foreign 


*  Liturgical  Services,  etc.,  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  p.  578. 
t  Ibid.,  p.  649.     J.  a  Lasco,  Opera,  ii.,  280,  281. 


TO    THE   OTHER   PROTESTANT   CHURCHES.  213 

churches,  to  be  aided  in  carrying  forward  the  work  of  reform 
in  England.  *  At  Glastonbury,  the  weavers  from  Strasburg 
were  organized  into  a  church.  They  ordained  their  minis- 
ters by  a  method  similar  to  that  of  the  French  churches. 
The  ordination  of  the  ministers  of  the  churches  of  Lasco 
was,  also,  Presbyterian.  If  this  reception  of  the  foreigners 
and  incorporation  of  them  into  churches  had  been  merely  an 
act  of  toleration  extended  to  strangers,  it  would  not  have 
taken  place  in  that  age,  had  there  not  been  an  ecclesiastical 
recognition  of  them  and  sympathy  with  them.  But  there 
was  more  than  bare  toleration ;  there  was  efficient  encour- 
agement and  patronage.  An  edifice  was  given  them  in 
London,  in  which  to  meet  for  worship,  and  their  ministers 
were  treated  with  marked  respect  and  fraternal  confidence. 

The  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  exhibit  no  trace  of 
the  theory  which  gives  an  exclusive  sanctity  to  episcopacy. 
They  are  obviously  drawn  up  according  to  the  idea  which 
prevailed  when  they  were  composed  under  Edward,  and  re- 
vised under  Elizabeth,  that  each  national  church  is  to  deter- 
mine its  own  polity  and  ceremonies.  In  Art.  XIX.,  the  visible 
church  of  Christ  is  defined  to  be  a  congregation  of  faithful 
men  in  which  the  Gospel  is  preached  in  its  purity,  and  the 
sacraments  administered  in  conformity,  as  to  essentials,  with 
Christ's  ordinance.  Here  are  the  notes  of  the  church,  as  they 
are  given  usually  in  Protestant  creeds.  Episcopacy  is  not 
among  them.  In  Art.  XXIII.,  the  choice  and  call  of  min- 
isters is  declared  to  be  in  the  hands  of  men  "  who  have  pub- 
lic authority  given  unto  them  in  the  congregation  "  for  this 
purpose.  In  Art.  XXXIY.,  we  read  :  "  It  is  not  necessary 
that  traditions  and  ceremonies  be  in  all  places  one  and  utterly 
like,  for  at  all  times  they  have  been  diverse  and  may  be 
changed  according  to  the  diversities  of  countries,  times,  and 
men's  manners,  so  that  nothing  be  ordained  against  God's 
Word."     Then  the  wrong  of  breaking  from  ceremonies  "  not 

*  Letters  of  Lasco  to  the  King  of  Poland.,  Opera^  ii.,  10. 


214:  THE   RELATION    OF    THE    CHTJKCH    OF   ENGLAND 

repugnant  to  God's  Word,"  and  approved  by  authority,  is 
asserted.  The  most  that  is  claimed  by  implication  is  that 
the  rites  of  the  church  of  England  are  not  inconsistent  with 
Scripture,  nor  forbidden  by  the  Word  of  God.  This  was 
the  old  ground  taken  in  the  contest  with  the  Puritans.  The 
same  Article  ends  with  ascribing  to  "every  particular  or 
national  church  "  the  authority,  "  to  ordain,  change,  and  abol- 
ish ceremonies  and  rites  of  the  church,"  so  far  as  they  are 
of  human  authority.  There  is  a  fact  respecting  this  Article 
which  bears  on  the  interpretation  of  it.  There  is  a  close  re- 
semblance in  its  language  to  the  11th  Article  in  the  thirteen 
which  were  drawn  up  as  the  basis  of  an  agreement  between 
the  English  and  German  divines,  at  their  conference  in  Lon- 
don, in  1538.*  It  was  a  platform  on  which  Lutherans  and 
Anglicans  could  alike  stand.  The  XXXIY th  Article  relates 
to  the  "  consecration  of  bishops  and  ministers."  Here,  if 
anywhere,  we  should  look  for  the  exclusive  theory ;  but  there 
is  not  a  word  of  it.  The  Ordinal  of  the  Prayer-Book  is  de- 
clared "  to  contain  all  things  necessary  to  such  consecration 
and  ordering ;  "  "  neither  hath  it  anything  that  of  itself  is 
superstitious  and  ungodly."  All  who  are  consecrated  or  or- 
dered according  to  that  form,  are  said  to  be  ''  rightly,  orderly, 
and  lawfully  consecrated  and  ordered."  The  Article  is,  so 
to  speak,  merely  defensive.  That  there  is  no  other  lawful 
method  of  ordination  is  not  in  the  faintest  manner  implied. 
That  any  one  should  suppose  himself  able  to  draw  any  sanc- 
tion for  the  exclusive  theory  from  the  articles  would  occa- 
sion astonishment,  if  we  did  not  know  that  a  class  of  theolo- 
gians have  professed  to  find  in  them  an  assertion  of  Armin- 
ianism.  After  such  a  feat  of  interpretation,  nothing  in  this 
line  is  surprising. 

We  turn  now  to  the  Ordinal ;  for  this  is  the  last  refuge  of 
the  defenders  of  the  jure  dwino  construction  of  Anglican 

*  See  Cranmer's  Miscellaneous  Writings  (Parker  Soc.  ed.),  p.  477, 
Compare  the  Latin  Articles  of  the  English  Church,  in  Niemeyer,  Collectio 
Confessionum,  p.  608. 


TO   THE    OTHER   PKOTESTANT   CHUECHES.  215 

law.  We  are  far  from  asserting  that  the  Anglo-Catholic 
party  has  nothing  to  found  itself  upon.  Such  a  party  has 
existed  from  the  beginning.  The  Prayer-Book  contains  vari- 
ous features  which  bear  witness  to  the  desire  of  its  compilers 
to  conciliate  old  prejudices  and  opinions,  or  to  their  inability 
to  overcome  them.  But  that  party  was  comparatively  weak 
when  the  formularies  of  the  church  of  England  took  their 
shape,  in  the  period  of  the  Reformation.  Had  Edward  YI. 
lived  longer,  or  had  Elizabeth  been  less  conservative  and 
less  domineering,  other  changes  would  have  taken  place ;  for 
the  Reformers  averred  that  they  considered  their  work  far 
from  complete.  However,  the  party  to  which  we  refer  did 
not  succeed  in  incorporating  their  shibboleth  into  the  law  of 
the  church.  The  preface  to  the  Ordinal  is  the  principal 
source  of  argument  for  the  advocates  of  the  exclusive  inter- 
pretation of  the  Anglican  system.  We  print  in  brackets  the 
words  that  were  added  in  1661,  after  the  Restoration: 

It  is  evident  unto  all  men  diligently  reading  the  holy  Scripture  and 
ancient  authors,  that  from  the  apostles'  time  there  have  been  these  or- 
ders of  ministers  in  Christ's  church ;  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  which 
offices  were  evermore  had  in  such  reverend  estimation,  that  no  man  might 
presume  to  execute  any  of  them,  except  he  were  first  called,  tried,  exam- 
ined, and  known  to  have  such  qualities  as  are  requisite  for  the  same ; 
and,  also,  by  public  prayer,  with  imposition  of  hands,  were  approved  and 
admitted  thereunto  by  lawful  authority.  And  therefore,  to  the  intent 
that  these  orders  may  be  continued,  and  reverently  used  and  esteemed  in 
the  Church  of  England  ;  no  man  shall  be  accounted  or  taken  a  lawful 
bishop,  priest,  or  deacon  in  the  Church  of  England,  or  suffered  to  execute 
any  of  said  functions,  except  he  be  called,  tried,  examined,  and  admitted 
thereunto,  according  to  the  form  hereafter  following  [or  hath  formerly 
had  episcopal  consecration,  or  ordination.] 

On  this  document  we  have  several  remarks  to  make. 

1.  The  preamble  simply  asserts  that  from  the  apostolic 
age  there  have  been  in  the  church  these  orders  of  ministers. 
It  does  not  affirm,  or  imply,  that  this  arrangement  is  pre- 
scribed by  the  divine  law  ;  much  less,  that  a  church  cannot 
exist  without  it,  or  that  where  there  is  a  modification  of  this 


216     THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHUECH  OF  ENGLAND 

system,  the  validity  of  ordination  is  destroyed.  The  intent 
is  only  to  preserve  this  system  in  the  Church  of  England — 
"  this  Church  of  England,"  as  the  phrase  ran,  in  the  Revi- 
sion of  1552 — not  to  impose  it,  as  a  condition  of  ecclesiastical 
communion,  on  other  churches. 

2.  The  form  of  ordination  is  presented  exclusively  as  a 
condition  of  holding  office  in  the  Church  of  England. 

3.  The  invalidity  of  the  ordination  of  Roman  Catholic 
priests  was  never  asserted,  although  they  were  not  ordained 
by  the  Anglican  form.  How,  then,  can  the  invalidity  of 
Presbyterian  ordination  be  inferred  from  this  injunction  of 
the  preface  ?  Moreover,  the  statute  of  the  loth  of  Eliza- 
beth opened  the  way  for  the  institution  of  Roman  Catholic 
converts,  and,  as  we  have  shown,  of  Protestant  ministers  or- 
dained abroad. 

4.  The  validity  of  the  ordination  of  the  other  Protestant 
churches  was  admitted  by  those  who  framed  the  Ordinal, 
and  has  been  admitted  by  a  numerous  body  of  the  most 
eminent  doctors  of  the  English  Church.  This  fact  ought  to 
settle  the  interpretation  of  this  document. 

5.  If  the  term  "  orders  "  was  meant  to  be  taken  in  the 
strict,  technical  sense,  then  the  preface  says  that  bishops 
have  existed  as  a  distinct  order  in  the  church  since  the  apos- 
tolic age.  Under  this  view  of  the  term,  a  fact  is  asserted, 
and  nothing  more ;  and  this  assertion  was  allowed  to  enter 
into  the  preamble,  without  being  challenged  by  such  as 
held  bishops  and  presbyters  to  be  of  the  same  order.  But, 
in  point  of  fact,  the  term  "  order "  was  not  unf requently 
used  in  a  loose  and  general  sense  by  those  who  held  that  the 
difference  between  the  two  classes  of  ministers  is  one  of  de- 
gree only.  We  will  give  a  marked  instance.  Jewel,  in  his 
Apologia^  says :  "  Credimus  ....  varios  in  ecclesia  esse 
ordines  ministrorum ;  alios  esse  diaconos,  alios  presbyteros, 
alios  episcopos,"  etc.  In  the  edition  of  the  same  work  in 
English  (1563),  the  passage  reads :  "  Furthermore,  that 
there  be  divers  degrees  of  ministers  in  the  church,  whereof 


TO  THE  OTHER  PROTESTANT  CHUKCHES.        217 

some  be  deacons,"  etc.  *  The  word  ordines  is  rendered  de- 
grees. We  know  that  Cranmer,  who  is  supposed  to  have  had 
a  leading  part  in  shaping  the  Ordinal  of  1549,  held  bishops 
and  presbyters  to  be  different  degrees  of  the  same  order. 
The  revision  of  1551,  which  resulted  in  Edward's  second  book, 
of  1552,  was  made  under  the  direct  or  indirect  influence 
of  men  like  Peter  Martyr,  John  a  Lasco,  Bucer,  and  Cal- 
vin, f  The  next  revision,  on  the  accession  of  Elizabeth,  was 
accomplished  by  Parker,  Cox,  Pilkington,  Grindal,  Sandys, 
and  others.  Of  those  who  were  actually  concerned  in  form- 
ing and  revising  the  Ordinal,  some  of  the  most  prominent 
are  known  to  have  held  that  bishops  and  presbyters  differ 
only  in  degree.  We  know  that  many  of  the  bishops  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  of  the  highest  repute,  from  Cranmer  to 
Ussher,  and  since  Ussher's  time,  have  entertained  this 
opinion.  The  High  Church  editors  of  the  Prayer-Book 
say :  X  "  The  distinction  of  the  order  of  bishops  from  that  of 
priests  was  definitely  asserted  for  the  first  time  in  1661," 
although  they  maintain  that  it  was  previously  implied  in  the 
preface  to  the  Ordinal.  "  It  was  not,"  they  add,  "  until  the 
close  of  the  sixteenth  century  that  the  distinction  between 
the  orders  of  bishops  and  priests  was  asserted."  Yery  little 
can  be  made  from  the  mere  use  of  the  word  "  orders  "  in 
this  preface. 

6.  The  changes  made  in  the  Ordinal  in  1661  are  very  sig- 
nificant as  to  its  original  character.  To  the , preface  were 
added  the  words :  "  or  hath  formerly  had  Episcopal  conse- 
cration or  ordination."  Why  this  addition,  if  the  preface 
without  it  wholly  excludes  non-episcopal  ministers  from  ser- 
vice in  the  Church  of  England  ?  But  the  alterations  of  1661 
are  obviously  with  a  view  to  make  a  distinction  between 
bishops  and  presbyter,  such  as  the  Ordinal  had  not  recog- 
nized.   The  phrases,  "  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination,''^ 

*  Jewel's  Works  (Parker  Soc.  ed.),  iiL,  10. 
f  Blunt's  Annotated  Pray&r-Book,  p.  536. 
X  Ibid.,  566. 
10 


218     THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 

"  ordaiiied  or  consecrated  a  bisliop,"  "  form  of  ordaining  or 
consecrating  a  bishop,"  for  the  first  time  definitely  asserted 
the  distinction  of  order  between  bishop  and  presbyter.  "^  In 
the  ordination  of  a  priest,  after  the  words  "  Receive  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  there  were  added  the  words  :  ''  for  the  office 
and  work  of  a  priest  in  the  church  of  God  now  committed 
to  thee  by  the  imposition  of  hands."  Analogous  phraseol- 
ogy was  added  in  the  service  for  the  ordination  of  a  bishop. 
Thus  the  distinction  of  the  two  offices  was  affirmed  by  im- 
plication, in  a  way  in  which  it  had  not  been  affirmed  before. 
Various  other  minor  changes  in  the  revision  of  1661  indicate 
plainly  the  same  design.  But  there  was  one  alteration 
which  deserves  special  attention.  Prior  to  1661,  Acts  xx., 
which  describes  the  meeting  of  the  Ephesian  elders  with 
Paul,  and  1  Tim.  iii.,  were  read  both  at  the  ordaining  of  a 
priest  and  at  the  consecration  of  a  bishop.  Both  these  por- 
tions of  Scripture  were  now  assigned  to  the  service  for  the 
consecration  of  bishops  exclusively.  The  latter  passage — 1 
Tim.  iii.,  1-8 — relates  to  the  character  and  work  of  a 
"bishop."  Before  1661,  this  chapter  was  deemed  appropri- 
ate for  the  ordination  of  a  presbyter  ;  then  it  was  not.  No 
one  can  look  at  the  alterations  effected  in  the  Ordinal  by  the 
reactionary  party  of  the  Restoration,  and  not  see  that  they 
spring  from  different  ideas  of  the  Episcopal  office  from  those 
which  the  original  framers  of  the  Ordinal  entertained. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that,  when  the  Ordinal  was  composed, 
Cranmer  had  changed  the  opinions  which  he  had  expressed 
at  an  earlier  day  respecting  episcopacy.  The  extreme  Eras- 
tianism  which  led  him  to  consider  the  king  a  proper  foun- 
tain of  episcopal 'authority,  so  that  even  ordination  from  any 
other  source  might  be  dispensed  with,  is  certainly  not  recog- 
nized in  any  formal  action  of  the  English  Church  or  State, 
unless  the  commission  granted  by  Henry  YIII.  to  Bonner, 
and  that  taken  out   by  Cranmer  after  Henry's  death  are 

♦  Annotated  Prayer-Book^  p.  566. 


TO    THE    OTHER   PROTESTANT   CHURCHES.  219 

counted  as  exceptions.*  Certainly  the  "  Institution  of  a 
Christian  Man  "  (1536),  and  the  "  Necessary  Doctrine  and 
Erudition  of  a  Christian  Man''''  (1543)  give  to  the  secular 
authority  no  such  function,  but  reserve  it  to  the  church  and 
to  its  ministers.  The  king's  authority  enables  them  to  per- 
form acts  within  his  realm,  for  which  the  church  has  pre- 
viously empowered  and  qualified  them.  A  declaration, 
which  defined  the  relation  of  the  clergy  to  the  civil  authority 
in  a  similar  way,  was  made  in  1538,  and  was  signed  by 
Cranmer,  Cromwell,  and  many  others.  The  opinion  of 
Cranmer,  which  attributes  to  the  king  this  extraordinary 
power,  bears  the  date  of  1540.  "Whatever  may  have  been 
his  final  conviction  on  this  matter,  whether  he  had  any  set- 
tled view  or  not,  there  is  no  evidence  of  any  modification  of 
his  ideas  upon  the  relation  of  bishops  to  presbyters.  The 
essential  equality  of  the  two  classes  of  ministers  is  assumed 
in  all  the  documents  to  which  we  have  just  referred.  Just 
before  the  death  of  Edward,  Cranmer  was  busy  in  trying  to 
procure  a  general  assembly  of  representatives  of  the  various 
Protestant  churches,  for  the  formation  of  a  common  creed. 
He  was  WTiting  to  Melanchthon,  Bullinger,  and  Calvin  on  the 
subject.  In  his  letter  to  Calvin  (March  20,  1552),  he  says  : 
"  Shall  we  neglect  to  call  together  a  godly  synod,  for  the 
refutation  of  error,  and  for  restoring  and  propagating  the 
truth  ? "  He  is  very  anxious  to  procure  an  agreement  on 
the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  If  he  had  suddenly  be- 
come convinced  of  the  necessity  of  episcopacy  to  the  being 
of  a  church,  or  if  he  had  attached  much  importance  to  the 
differences  in  polity  among  the  Protestant  bodies,  it  is  hardly 
possible  that  he  would  not  have  made  some  allusion  to  the 
subject,  on  such  an  occasion.     The  representation  that  he 

*  This  matter  is  discussed  in  the  Correspondence  of  Lord  Macaulay  with 
the  Bishop  of  Exeter  (2d.  ed.,  1861).  We  have  observed  a  note  of  Henry 
VIII.  to  "  the  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man^''  which  appears  to  suggest 
this  lofty  notion  of  his  prerogative.  Cranmer,  MisceUaneous  Writings^ 
p.  97. 


220     THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHUKCH  OF  ENGLAND 

had  changed  his  opinions  when  the  Ordinal  was  composed, 
is  a  pure  myth.  Lasco  informs  iis  that  he  had  special  en- 
couragement in  the  formation  of  his  foreign  churches  in 
England  from  Cranmer,  as  well  as  from  the  king's  council. 
"  The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,"  he  says,  "  promoted  it 
with  all  his  might."  Lasco  was  urged  to  organize  his 
churches  according  "  to  the  divine  Word,"  and  not  to  fol- 
low "the  rites  of  other  churches."  * 

A  modern  writer  of  the  Church  of  England,  who  is  quite 
removed  from  all  sympathy  with  Puritanism,  remarks  that, 
"  till  the  passing  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity  in  the  reign  of 
Charles  II.  the  ordination  conveyed  by  presbyters,  though 
resisted  by  the  governors  of  the  church,  had  never  been  dis- 
owned by  the  legislature."  However  theologians  of  the 
school  of  Laud  might  have  exerted  their  power  to  exclude 
all  ministers  not  ordained  by  bishops,  the  law  of  England 
could  not  be  used  as  an  instrument  for  their  purpose.  But 
the  legislation  at  this  epoch  was  shaped  by  the  extreme  par- 
tisans of  episcopacy.  "The  substitution,"  says  the  same 
writer,f  "  in  the  Prayer-Book,  of  '  church  '  for '  congregation,' 
the  specific  mention  of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  instead 
of  a  more  general  designation,  the  reintroduction  of  Bel  and 
the  Dragon  into  the  Calendar,  and  other  similar  alterations, 
though  none  of  them  new  in  principle,  seemed  designed  to 
convince  the  non-conformists  that  instead  of  any  wish  to  ad- 
mit them  to  further  power  or  privilege  within  the  church, 
there  was  a  distinct  and  settled  desire  to  restrain  or  exclude 
them." :]:  This  writer  would  not  have  erred  if  he  had  attrib- 
uted these  measures  to  the  bitter  resentment  of  a  formerly 
depressed,  but  now  victorious  party. 

The  Revolution  of  1688  offered  a  splendid  opportunity  for 
undoing  this  bad  work,  and  for  a  new  measure  of  compre- 
hension, such  as  justice  and  policy  alike  called  for.     The 


*  See  the  Works  of  Lasco,  ii.,  10,  278  seq. 

■j-  Card  well,  History  of  Conferences^  etc.,  p.  419. 

i  Ibid.,  p.  389. 


TO    THE    OTHER    PK0TE8TANT   CHURCHES.  221 

king  and  court  favored  such  a  measure.  The  churchmen 
of  noblest  gifts,  of  whom  Tillotson  was  one  of  the  chiefs, 
strove  to  accomplish  it.  Among  the  concessions  which  Til- 
lotson proposed,  and  which  are  recorded  as  having  been  sent 
by  him,  through  Stillingfleet,  to  the  Earl  of  Portland,  stands 
the  following :  "  That  for  the  future  those  who  have  been 
ordained  in  any  of  the  foreign  reformed  churches,  be  not 
required  to  be  reordained  here,  to  render  them  capable  of 
preferment  in  this  church."  At  first,  Tillotson  and  his  as- 
sociates expected  to  carry  the  measure  which  they  proposed. 
But  it  failed.  One  reason  of  its  failure  was  the  recent  for- 
cible expulsion  of  episcopacy  from  Scotland,  where,  as  Card- 
well  observes,  there  was  "  no  stated  liturgy  in  general  use," 
and  where  "  they  allowed  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  or- 
ders." *  Another  reason  was  the  fear  that  the  Jacobite 
non-jurors,  in  case  the  Liturgy  should  be  altered,  would  or- 
ganize a  formidable  schism  under  the  name  of  the  old  and 
true  Church  of  England.  These  considerations  lent  their 
aid  to  the  party  which,  on  theological  grounds,  were  hostile 
to  the  offering  of  any  concessions  to  the  dissenters. 

It  is,  therefore,  the  misfortune  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
that  it  inherits,  not  the  constitution  that  was  given  to  it  by 
the  reforaiers,  but  the  same  as  amended  for  the  worse,  in 
the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,  by  the  controlling 
faction  at  the  restoration  of  the  Stuarts.  But,  even  in  this 
form,  although  it  shuts  out  from  service  in  the  Church  of 
England  all  ministers  not  ordained  by  a  bishop,  it  pronounces 
no  condemnation  upon  the  orders  of  non-episcopal  churches.' 
In  an  opinion  which  was  given  not  long  ago  by  three  emi- 
nent ecclesiastical  lawyers,  not  only  is  the  liberal  interpreta- 
tion of  the  statute  of  the  13th  of  Elizabeth  sanctioned,  and 
this  statute,  in  connection  with  the  XXIIId  Article,  and  with 
the  practice  of  the  Church  of  England,  prior  to  the  Act  of 
Uniformity,  declared  to  preclude  the  seeming  exclusiveness 

*  History  of  Conferences^  p.  421. 


THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHUECH  OF  ENGLAND 

of  the  preface  to  the  Ordinal,  but  these  lawyers  express 
doubts  whether  even  now,  since  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  it  is 
illegal  for  non-episcopal  ministers  to  preach  occasional  ser- 
mons in  any  church  of  England,  with  the  permission  of  the 
incumbent.* 

When  a  clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England,  like  the 
Dean  of  Canterbury  on  a  late  occasion,  finds  himself  in  a 
foreign  country,  there  is  nothing  in  the  law  of  England,  or 
of  the  Church  of  England,  to  prevent  him  from  performing 
acts  of  ecclesiastical  communion  with  the  churches  and  min- 
isters of  non-episcopal  bodies.     The   Episcopal  Church  in 


*  This  legal  opinion  is  referred  to  by  Principal  Tulloch,  Contemporary 
Beview,  December,  1871. 

[A  writer  in  The  Qaarterly  Review  for  October,  1878,  after  proving-  that 
the  English  Church  was  in  complete  communion  and  sympathy  with  the 
foreign  Protestant  churches  up  to  the  eve  of  the  Restoration,  shows  that 
even  then  the  requirement  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity  that  ministers  should 
be  episcopally  ordained,  carried  in  it  no  denial  of  the  validity  of  Presby- 
terian ordination.  "  At  the  very  moment  of  insisting  on  this  qualification 
as  a  general  rule,  the  Act  makes  an  exception  in  favor  of  the  members  of 
foreign  Protestant  bodies.  Immediately  after  the  clauses  which,  in  Eng- 
land, Wales,  and  Berwick-upon-Tweed,  require  Episcopal  ordination  as  a 
preliminary  condition  to  the  tenure  of  a  benefice,  and  to  the  administra- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  Act  proceeds  : — '  Provided  that  the  penal- 
ties in  this  Act  shall  not  extend  to  the  foreigners  or  aliens  of  the  foreign 
Reformed  churches — allowed,  or  to  be  allowed,  by  the  king's  majesty,  his 
heirs  and  successors  in  England. '  "  The  rule  of  Episcopal  ordination  was 
established  for  Englishmen ;  but  the  defenders  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity 
disowned  the  intention  of  pronouncing  judgment  adverse  to  the  orders  of 
the  foreign  churches.  Archbishop  Bramhall,  immediately  after  the  Act 
'of  Uniformity,  required  conditional  or  hypothetical  reordination  on  this 
ground  alone,  that  "we  are  now  to  consider  ourselves  as  a  national 
church,  limited  by  law."  "  Non  annihilantes  priores  ordines  (si  quos 
habuit)  nee  validitatem  aut  invaliditatem  determinantes  " — is  his  lan- 
guage. The  bishops  who  were  consecrated  for  Scotland  in  1661,  received 
Episcopal  ordination  and  consecration,  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  they 
required  Episcopal  reordination  of  the  Scottish  clergy.  The  bishops 
•vsent  into  Scotland  in  1610,  had  been  sent  to  preside  over  Presbyterian 
clergy.  The  Bishops  of  Winchester,  whose  diocese  embraces  the  Channel 
Islands,  recognized,  from  the  days  of  the  Reformation,  as  parish  priests, 
the  ministers  of  the  French  Protestant  churches.] 


TO  THE  OTHEK  PROTESTANT  OHUECHES.        223 

this  country  is  not  a  national  clmrcli.  It  is  only  one  among 
various  denominations  of  Christians,  which  are  equal  before 
the  law.  The  first  settlers  of  this  country,  in  establishing 
new  political  communities,  availed  themselves  of  the  right, 
universally  conceded  by  Protestants  to  every  people,  to 
shape  their  church  polity  to  suit  themselves.  Some  of  them 
were  from  the  Church  of  Holland ;  some  were  Huguenots  ; 
and  some  were  English  non-conformists.  These  Christian 
non-episcopal  denominations  are  not  dissenters  or  schismatics, 
in  any  proper  or  intelligible  sense  of  the  terms.  They  stand 
on  the  same  footing  in  relation  to  the  Church  of  England  as 
do  the  Lutheran  Churches  of  Germany  and  Sweden,  or  the 
Protestant  Church  of  France.  Whoever  raises  an  objection 
to  such  an  act  as  that  of  the  Dean  of  Canterbury  in  taking 
part  in  the  communion  service  with  a  Presbyterian  clergy- 
man, has  a  right  to  his  notions  as  to  the  law  of  the  Church 
of  England,  but  he  has  no  moral  right  to  condemn  others, 
who  do  not  share  in  them,  for  obeying  their  own  convictions. 
Certain  it  is  that  the  great  divines  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, for  more  than  a  century  after  the  Reformation,  would 
have  lifted  up  their  hands  in  amazement  on  hearing  any- 
body object  to  such  an  act  of  fellowship  with  foreign  non- 
episcopal  churches  as  Dean  Alford  performed  at  Berlin,  or 
Dean  Smith  in  Kew  York.  The  circumstance  that  the  law 
of  England  requires  certain  formalities  before  an  Episcopal 
clergyman  from  abroad  can  officiate  in  a  pulpit  of  the  nation- 
al church,  is  not  apposite  to  the  case  in  hand.  Apart  from 
the  difference,  that  here  there  is  no  national  church,  whose 
clergymen  are  bound  by  civil  regulations,  the  analogous  case 
would  be  that  of  an  American  Episcopal  minister  officiating 
in  a  Methodist  or  Independent  chapel  in  England.  Mere 
questions  of  ecclesiastical  etiquette  we  must  leave  for  experts 
to  determine.  Moral  obligation,  however,  is  higher  than 
conventionalities.  A  liberal-minded  Anglican  clergyman, 
visiting  America,  is  not  bound  to  submit  himself  to  the  su- 
pervision and  control  of  local  bishops  who  hold  that  aU 


224:     THE  RELATION  OF  THE  CHUKCH  OF  ENGLAND 

Protestant  denominations,  except  their  own,  are  destitute  of 
an  authorized  ministry  and  of  the  sacraments,  and  whose 
conceptions  of  episcopacy  are  derived,  not  from  divines  like 
Cranmer,  Jewel,  Ussher,  and  Whately,  but  from  the  inter- 
pretations and  theories  of  Laud  and  Sheldon.  John  Wesley 
was  complained  of  for  preaching  in  parishes,  not  in  the 
church  but  in  the  open  air,  and  without  an  invitation  from 
the  incumbent.  lie  answered  that,  being  excluded  from  the 
parish  churches,  if  he  preached  nowhere  else,  he  would  be 
silenced.  If  he  had  complied  with  current  notions  of  regu- 
larity and  etiquette,  where  would  Methodism  have  been  ? 
And  what  would  the  Church  of  England  have  been,  without 
the  reactionary  influence  of  that  Reformation  ?  So  now, 
the  demands  of  Christian  catholicity  may  justly  override  the 
prescriptions  of  a  punctilious  etiquette  ;  especially  when 
these  are  acknowledged  by  only  one  of  the  parties  con- 
cerned. 

The  Church  of  England,  notwithstanding  all  its  defects, 
is  a  great  and  noble  institution.  We  wish  it  no  evil.  But 
it  is  now  tasting  the  fruit  of  errors  in  the  past.  On  three 
great  occasions  at  least,  golden  opportunities  for  a  larger 
comprehension  were  presented,  and  those  opportunities  were 
cast  away.  The  first  was  at  the  accession  of  James  I.  when 
the  millenary  petition  was  offered,  and  when,  at  the  Hamp- 
ton Court  Conference,  to  the  unspeakable  delight  of  a  knot 
of  partisan  and  sycophantic  bishops,  that  "  Solomon  of  the 
age  "  bullied  the  Puritans.  The  second  was  at  the  restora- 
tion of  the  throne,  at  the  accession  of  Charles  11.,  when  his 
most  solemn  pledges  were  violated,  and  when  the  Savoy 
Conference  was  attended  by  another  victory  of  a '  bigoted 
faction.  The  third  was  at  the  Pevolution,  when  the  same 
faction,  aided  by  peculiar  circumstances  to  wliich  we  have 
adverted,  gained  another  triumph.  At  both  of  these  last 
epochs,  the  noblest  and  wisest  men  of  the  clergy  and  laity 
were  the  advocates  of  a  liberal  policy.  Now,  nearly  half  of 
the  English  nation  is  arrayed  in  hostility  to  the  national 


TO    THE   OTHER   PROTESTANT  CHURCHES.  225 

church.  If  the  Church  of  England  should  be  disestab- 
lished, it  would  most  probably  be  divided.  It  is  hardly  pos- 
sible that  the  party  which  cleaves  to  that  Judaizing  type  of 
religion,  which  is  an  heirloom  from  Pharisaism,  and  is  an  eter- 
nal foe  of  the  Gospel — as  truly  so  to-day  as  it  was  when  Paul 
denounced  it  without  stint,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians — 
should  abide  in  the  same  communion  with  the  adherents 
of  the  principles  of  the  Reformation.  The  extreme  Pitu- 
alists,  with  their  candles,  "  their  flexions  and  genuflexions," 
their  elevation  of  ceremonies  above  truth  and  godliness,  will 
form  a  church  by  themselves,  or  go  back  to  the  Pope,  where 
they  belong.  Under  the  present  circumstances,  the  signs  of 
the  times  being  what  they  are,  and  when  the  Pomanizing 
faction  are  active,  it  is  not  strange  that  enlightened  men  of 
the  Low  Church  and  Broad  Church  parties  should  be  in- 
clined to  draw  closer  to  the  other  Protestant  bodies,  which 
hold  the  same  faith,  and  should  desire  to  see  the  Church  of 
England  abandon  the  habit  of  seclusion,  which  is  not  re- 
quired by  her  constitution,  but  which  was  forced  upon  her 
in  the  servile  days  of  the  Stuarts,  and  resume  her  old  posi- 
tion by  the  side  of  her  sisters  of  the  Peformation.  Such 
men  feel  that  the  contests  of  the  seventeenth  century  are 
over,  and  that  the  passions  engendered  by  them  should  die 
out,  and  that  the  barriers  that  were  erected  by  partisan  feel- 
ing should  be  levelled.  In  each  of  the  branches  of  the 
High  Church  party,  there  are  good  men.  But  with  the 
principles  of  this  party  it  is  impossible  for  a  genuine  Prot- 
estantism to  feel  any  sympathy.  The  astronomers  tell  us 
that  any  star,  however  diminutive  it  might  be,  on  which  we 
should  place  ourselves,  would  appear  to  be  the  centre  of  the 
universe,  and  that  the  whole  creation  would  seem  to  re- 
volve around  the  particular  spot  where  we  stand.  It  must 
be  through  some  similar  delusion  that  this  party  of  the  An- 
glican Church,  a  party  which  constitutes  but  an  insignificant 
fraction  of  the  Christian  world,  while  it  turns  its  back  on 
the  Protestant  churches,  and,  in  turn,  is  spumed  by  the 
10* 


226   THE  KELATION  OF  THE  CHUECH  OF  ENGLAND,  ETC. 

Church  of  Rome,  yet  imagines  itself  the  centre  and  embodi- 
ment of  catholic  unity.  Archbishop  Whately  was  not  a 
man  of  genius,  but  he  was  a  man  of  remarkable  good  sense. 
In  his  work  on  the  Kingdom  of  Christ,  he  shows  that  the 
Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  "rest  the  claims  of 
ministers,  not  on  some  supposed  sacramental  virtue,  trans- 
mitted from  hand  to  hand  in  unbroken  succession  from  the 
apostles,  in  a  chain,  of  which  if  any  one  link  be  ever  doubt- 
ful, a  distressing  uncertainty  is  thrown  over  all  Christian 
ordinances,  sacramentis,  and  church-privileges  forever ;  but, 
on  the  fact  of  those  ministers  being  the  regularly-appointed 
officers  of  a  regular  Christian  community."  Those,  he  says, 
who  seek  to  take  what  they  call  higher  ground,  "  are  in  fact 
subverting  the  principles  both  of  our  own  church  in  particu- 
lar, and  of  every  Christian  Church  that  claims  the  inherent 
rights  belonging  to  a  community,  and  confirmed  by  the  sanc- 
tion of  God's  Word  as  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures." 
"  It  is  curious,"  adds  Whately,  "  how  very  common  it  is  for 
any  sect  or  party  to  assume  a  title  indicative  of  the  very  ex- 
cellence in  which  they  are  especially  deficient,  or  strongly 
condemnatory  of  the  very  errors  with  which  they  are  espe- 
cially chargeable  ....  The  phrase  'Catholic'  religion 
{i.  6.,  *  Universal '),  is  the  most  commonly  in  the  mouths  of 
those  who  are  the  most  limited  and  exclusive  in  their  views, 
and  who  seek  to  shut  out  the  largest  number  of  Christian 
communities  from  the  Gospel  covenant.  '  Schism,'  again,  is 
by  none  more  loudly  reprobated  than  by  those  who  are  not 
only  the  immediate  authors  of  schism,  but  the  advocates  of 
principles  tending  to  generate  and  perpetuate  schisms  with- 
out end."  ^  It  would  be  well  for  the  party,  which  Whately 
here  delineates  in  language  not  more  caustic  than  it  is  just, 
to  learn,  that  to  take  a  part  for  the  whole  is  the  very  es- 
sence of  a  sect. 

*  Kingdom  of  Christ  (Am.  ed.),  pp.  126, 127, 128. 


THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF   JONATHAN  EDWAKDS.  227 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  JONATHAN  EDWARDS.* 

It  was  pretty  clearly  implied  in  a  remark  of  Dugald  Stew- 
art that  up  to  his  time  Jonathan  Edwards  was  the  only 
philosopher  of  note  that  America  had  produced.  "  He,"  it 
is  added,  "  in  logical  acuteness  and  subtilty,  does  not  yield 
to  any  disputant  bred  in  the  imiversities  of  Europe."  f 
This  was  said  more  than  a  half  century  ago ;  but  all  will 
agree  that  Edwards  even  now  is  incomparably  the  foremost 
among  those  who  have  cultivated  metaphysical  studies  on 
this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  He  was  the  pioneer  in  this  de- 
partment, and  the  same  might  also  be  said  of  his  relation  to 
our  literature  generally.  "  The  foundation  of  the  literature 
of  independent  America,"  writes  F.  D.  Maurice,  speaking  of 
the  treatise  on  the  Will,  "  was  laid  in  a  book  which  was 
published  while  it  was  a  subject  of  the  British  crown.":]: 
Edwards  is  an  example  of  that  rare  mingling  of  intellectual 
subtilty  and  spiritual  insight,  of  logical  acumen  with  mysti- 
cal fervor,  which  make  up  together  the  largest  mental  en- 
dowment, and  qualify  their  possessor  for  the  highest  achieve- 
ments in  the  field  of  thought.  Augustine  is  an  instance  of 
this  remarkable  blending  of  the  rational  with  the  mystical, 
this  union  of  light  and  heat.  In  his  Confessions,  in  the 
midst  of  glowing  utterances  of  adoration,  transporting  visions 
of  a  glory  unseen,  he  turns  off  into  a  speculation  upon  the 
nature  of  time,  or  an  argument  upon  the  infinitude  of  the 
divine  attributes.  In  the  typical  men  of  the  scholastic  age, 
Anselm  and  Aquinas,  there  is  found  the  same  combination 

♦  An  Article  in  The  North  American  Review  for  March,  1879. 
f  Stewart's  Works  (Hamilton's  ed.),  voL  i.,  p.  424. 
X  Modern  Philosophy^  p.  469. 


228  THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF  JONATHAN  EDWARDS. 

of  intellect  and  feeling.  The  understanding  follows  out  its 
problems,  being  quickened  and  illuminated,  yet  not  in  the 
least  blinded,  from  a  deeper  source  of  light.  The  lack  of 
the  one  element,  that  of  devout  sensibility,  was  the  weak- 
ness of  Abelard ;  a  degree  of  deficiency  in  the  other,  that  of 
dialectic  enterprise  and  keenness,  lessened  the  greatness  of 
Bernard.  A  like  conjunction  of  diverse  qualities  appears  in 
the  most  subtile,  the  most  powerful,  the  most  interesting  of 
living  English  theologians,  John  Henry  Newman.  Let  any 
competent  student  take  up  Edwards's  treatise  on  the  Will, 
and  mark  the  sharp,  unrelenting  logic  with  which  he  pur- 
sues his  opponents  through  all  the  intricate  windings  of  that 
perplexed  controversy,  and  then  turn  to  the  same  author's 
sermon  on  the  Nature  and  Reality  of  Bjpiritnjbal  Light. 
It  is  like  passing  from  the  pages  of  Aristotle  to  a  sermon  of 
John  Tauler  ;  only  that,  unlike  most  of  the  mystics,  Edwards 
knows  how  to  analyze  the  experiences  of  the  heart,  and  to 
use  them  as  data  for  scientific  conclusions.  He  has  left  a 
record  of  meditations  on  "the  beauty  and  sweetness"  of 
divine  things,  when  even  the  whole  face  of  nature  was  trans- 
figured to  his  vision.  We  see  this  keen  dialectician,  whose , 
power  of  subtile  argument  Sir  James  Mackintosh  pronoun- 
ces to  have  been  "  perhaps  unmatched,  certainly  unsur- 
passed, among  men,"  "^  melted  in  an  ecstasy  of  emotion. 
We  shall  have  occasion  to  point  out  the  effect  of  this 
characteristic  upon  his  ethical  and  religious  philosophy. 

Edwards  was  only  thirteen  when  he  entered  Yale  Col- 
lege ;  and  it  was  while  he  was  a  member  of  college  that  he 
committed  to  writing  philosophical  remarks  that  would  do 
credit  to  the  ablest  and  maturest  mind.  He  is  one  of  the 
most  astonishing  examples  of  precocious  mental  develop- 
ment of  which  we  have  any  record.  Pascal  is  in  some  re- 
spects a  parallel  instance.  He  was  only  twelve  years  old 
when  he  framed,  from  his  own  ingenious  observations,  a  dis- 

*  Progress  of  Ethical  Philosophy^  p.  108  (Philadelphia  ed.,  1833). 


THE   PHILOSOPHY    OF   JONATHAN   EDWARDS.  229 

sertation  upon  sound,  and  when  he  discovered  anew,  without 
aid,  the  truths  of  geometry  as  far  as  the  thirty-second  propo- 
sition of  the  first  book  of  Euclid.  It  was  chiefly  as  a 
mathematical  prodigy  that  Pascal  was  distinguished  in  his 
boyhood.  Edwards,  at  the  age  of  twelve,  wrote  a  letter, 
which  is  really  a  well-reasoned  scientific  paper,  on  the  habits 
of  the  spider,  as  ascertained  from  his  own  singularly  accu- 
rate observations.*  His  copious  Notes  on  physics  and 
natural  science,  which  afford  a  striking  proof  of  his  intellec- 
tual grasp  and  versatility,  were  written,  at  least  in  great 
part,  before  he  left  college.  But  prior  to  the  composition 
of  these,  he  set  down,  under  the  head  of  Mind,  a  series 
of  metaphysical  definitions  and  discussions,  which,  as  emana- 
ting from  a  boy  of  sixteen  or  seventeen,  are  truly  marvellous. 
In  them  may  be  found  the  germs  of  much  that  is  developed 
afterwards  in  his  theological  writings. 

Edwards  was  a  Berkeleian.  A  large  part  of  these  juvenile 
papers  are  devoted  to  the  elucidation  and  defence  of  the 
doctrine  that  the  percepts  of  sense  have  no  existence  inde- 
pendently of  mind ;  that,  although  they  are  not  originated 
by  us,  but  by  a  power  without,  that  power  is  not  a  material 
substance  or  substratum,  but  the  will  of  God  acting  in  a 
uniform  method.  Sensations  are  the  divine  ideas,  commu- 
nicated to  creaturely  minds  by  the  will  of  Him  in  whom 
these  ideas  inhere,  and  by  whom  they  aU  consist.  "  The 
world  is  an  ideal  one  ;  and  the  law  of  creating  and  the  succes- 
sion of  these  ideas  is  constant  and  regular."  f  If  we  suppose 
that  the  world  is  mental  in  the  sense  explained,  natural 
philosophy  is  not  in  the  least  affected.  X  The  common  ques- 
tions which  are  brouglit  forward  by  way  of  objection — as, 
"What  becomes  of  material  things  when  we  do  not  see 
them  ?  " — he  ingeniously  answers,  and  in  a  tone  that  renders 
his  own  belief  in  their  nullity  plain.     He  quotes  from  Cud- 

*  In  Dvdght's  Life  of  Edwa/rds^  chap.  ii. 
flbid.,  p.  669. 
X  Ibid. 


230  THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF   JONATHAN   EDWARDS. 

worth  Plato's  famous  passage  about  the  cave,  to  illustrate  his 
doctrine  that  material  things  are  shadows  and  not  substan- 
ces. The  substance  of  all  bodies  is  declared  to  be  "  the  in- 
finitely exact  and  precise  divine  idea,  together  with  an 
answerable,  perfectly  exact,  precise,  and  stable  will,  with  re- 
spect to  corresponding  communications  to  created  minds, 
and  effects  on  their  minds."*  The  objection  that  the 
ideal  theory  is  contradicted  by  common-sense,  he  confutes 
by  showing  how  erroneous,  on  any  theory,  is  the  vulgar  im- 
pression as  to  the  character  of  our  perception  of  distant  ob- 
jects, and  by  exhibiting  the  Berkeleian  discovery,  which 
Professor  Bowen  calls  the  one  great  psychological  discovery 
of  later  times,  f  that  our  impression  of  objects  of  sense 
from  visual  perception  is  totally  diverse  from  that  given 
through  the  sense  of  touch.  Take  away  color,  take  away 
the  secondary  qualities  of  matter  which  are  confessed  to  be 
relative — view  matter  as  one  who  is  born  blind  would  re- 
gard it — and  we  have  only  resistance,  with  the  connected 
ideas  of,  place  and  of  space.  Matter  is  thus  known  to  be 
something  quite  different  from  what  the  vulgar  imagine  it 
to  be.  So  the  way  is  opened  for  a  more  just  appreciation 
of  the  ideal  theory,  and  for  the  conclusion,  which  Edwards 
considers  to  be  the  truth,  that  there  are  only  spiritual  beings 
or  substances  in  the  universe. 

It  is  important  to  decide  whether  Edwards  adhered  to  the 
Berkeleian  doctrine  in  after-life.  It  is  found  in  the  Notes 
on  Natural  PhilosojpJiy^  as  well  as  in  the  manuscript  entitled 
Mmd.  These,  however,  were  nearly  contemporaneous. 
But  in  the  last-mentioned  manuscript  there  are  passages 
inserted  of  a  somewhat  later  date  ;  and  in  these  the  same 
doctrine  is  defended.  %  Moreover,  I  find  in  the  treatise  on 
Original  Sim,,  one  of  his  latest  compositions  and  a  posthu- 
mous publication,  this  remark :  "  The  course  of  nature  is 

♦  Dwight's  Life,  p.  674 

f  Modern  Philosophy ^  p.  141. 

%  See  Dwight's  Life^  p.  674. 


THE   PHILOSOPHY    OF   JONATHAN   EDWAEDS.  231 

demonstrated  bj  late  improvements  in  philosophy  to  be  in- 
deed what  om*  author  himseK  says  it  is,  viz.,  nothing  but  the 
established  order  of  the  agency  and  operation  of  the  Author 
of  nature."  *  Here  it  is  altogether  probable  that  the  refer- 
ence is  to  the  philosophy  of  Berkeley.  With  this  passage 
may  be  compared  incidental  statements  on  perception,  in  the 
treatise  on  the  will,  which,  however,  do  not  go  so  far  as  nec- 
essarily to  imply  the  Berkeleian  theory,  f 

A  less  important  yet  interesting  question  relates  to  the 
particular  source  from  which  Edwards  derived  his  acquaint- 
ance with  Berkeley.  Professor  Fraser,  in  his  very  thorough 
and  instructive  biography  of  this  philosopher,  conjectures 
that  it  may  have  been  through  the  influence  of  Dr.  Samuel 
Johnson,  who  was  a  personal  friend  of  the  philosopher,  and 
adopted  his  system.  Johnson  was  a  tutor  at  Yale  from  1716 
to  1719,  when  Edwards. was  a  student.  But,  from  1717  to 
1719,  a  portion  of  the  students,  of  whom  Edwards  was  one, 
were  taught  at  Wethersfield,  Johnson  remaining  in  ^ew 
Haven.  The  seceding  students  who  went  to  Wethersfield 
did  not  regard  Tutor  Johnson  with  favor.  E^or  is  it  certain 
that  he  had  himself  espoused  the  Berkeleian  theory  at  that 
time.  But  the  Thecrry  of  Vision  was  given  to  the  world  in 
1709,  and  the  Principles  of  Iluma/n  Knowledge  in  1710  ;  so 
that  it  is  not  improbable  that  copies  of  these  works  had 
come  into  the  hands  of  Edwards,  independently  of  Johnson. 
They  found  in  him  an  eager  and  congenial  disciple. 

Locke  is  the  author  whose  stimulating  influence  on  Ed- 
wards is  most  obvious.  He  read  Locke  when  he  was  four- 
teen years  old,  with  a  delight  greater,  to  use  his  own  words, 
"  than  the  most  greedy  miser  finds  when  gathering  up  hand- 
fuls  of  silver  and  gold  from  some  newly  discovered  treas- 
ure." if  Deeply  affected  as  Edwards  was  by  this  great 
writer,  he  read  Locke  with  independence,  and  not  only  pur- 

*  Dwight's  edition,  vol.  ii,  p.  540. 
t  Ibid.,  pp.  206,  207. 
%  Dwight's  Ufe^  p.  30. 


232  THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF   JONATHAN   EDWARDS. 

sued  a  theological  direction  quite  opposite  to  that  of  his 
master,  but  also  criticises  not  unfrequentlj  his  doctrines  and 
arguments.  For  example,  he  exposes  the  fallacy  of  the  il- 
lustration by  which  Locke  would  support  his  distinction  be- 
tween preference  and  choice ;  and  he  likewise  shows  that 
Locke  does  not  rightly  define  the  difference  between  desire 
and  will.  "^  In  this  last  point,  Locke  goes  counter  to  the 
description  which  he  gives  of  the  will  in  the  context,  accord- 
ing to  which  it  cannot  be  at  variance  with  predominant  de- 
sire. Edwards  could  easily  detect  the  inconsistency  of 
Locke  in  postulating  a  power  to  suspend  the  prosecution  of 
a  desire  ;  since  this  act  of  suspension  must  itself  be  a  choice, 
determined,  like  every  other,  on  Locke's  principles,  by  the 
strongest  motive.  It  is  to  Locke's  chapter  on  Power  that 
Edwards  was  most  indebted  for  quickening  suggestions. 
This  discussion,  as  we  are  explicitly  informed,  caused  him  to 
perceive  that  an  evil  man  may  properly  be  said  to  have  a 
natural  or  physical  ability  to  be  good.  Locke  anticipates 
Edwards  in  combating  the  proposition  that  choice  springs 
from  a  previous  state  of  indifference,  an  absolute  neutrality 
of  feeling,  either  preceding  the  act  of  judgment  or  inter- 
posed between  that  act  and  the  act  of  will.  Locke's  con- 
ception of  liberty  as  relating  exclusively  to  the  effects  of 
choice,  or  events  consecutive  to  volition,  and  not  to  the  origi- 
nation of  choice  itself,  is  precisely  coincident  with  that  of 
Edwards.  "  Freedom,"  says  Locke,  "  consists  in  the  de- 
pendence of  the  existence,  or  non-existence,  of  any  action 
upon  our  volition  of  it."  Locke  asserts  that  the  question 
whether  the  will  itseK  be  free  or  not  is  unreasonable  and 
unintelligible  ;  and  he  precedes  Edwards  in  seeking  to  fasten 
upon  one  who  asks  whether  a  man  is  free  to  choose  in  a 
particular  way  rather  than  in  the  opposite,  the  absurdity  of 
assuming  the  possibility  of  an  infinite  series  of  choices,  or  of 
inquiring  whether  an  identical  proposition  is  true.     "  To 

*  Vol.  ii,  pp.  16, 17. 


THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF   JONATHAN  EDWARDS.  233 

choose  as  one  pleases,"  if  it  does  not  mean  "  to  choose  as  one 
chooses  to  choose  " — ^which  involves  the  absurdity  of  a  series 
of  choices  ad  infinitum — can  only  mean  "  to  choose  as  one 
actually  chooses,"  a  futile  identical  proposition.  In  the 
psychology  of  the  act  of  choice  there  is  no  essential  differ- 
ence between  Locke  and  Edwards.  Both  represent  the 
mind  as  perpetually  moved  by  the  desire  of  good.  Locke's 
invariable  antecedent  of  choice,  "uneasiness  of  desire,"  or 
last  dictate  of  the  understanding  as  to  good  or  happiness, 
does  not  differ  from  Edwards's  "  view  of  the  mind  as  to  the 
greatest  apparent  good."  In  one  grand  peculiarity  they 
coincide :  will  and  sensibility  are  confounded.  The  twofold  n 
division  of  the  powers  of  the  mind  still  prevailed  in  philoso- 
phy. We  are  endued  with  understanding  and  will ;  and 
mental  phenomena  which  do  not  belong  to  the  understand- 
ing are  relegated  to  the  will.  It  is  impossible  to  ignore 
wholly  the  existence  of  a  third  department  of  our  nature ; 
and  the  principal  inconsistency  of  Edwards  in  his  discussions 
of  this  subject,  in  his  various  writings,  is  the  failure  per- 
sistently to  identify  or  persistently  to  distinguish  voluntary 
and  involuntary  inclinations.  Inclination  and  choice  are 
treated  as  indistinguishable,*  and  yet  the  one  is  spoken  of 
as  the  antecedent  and  cause  of  the  other.  The  ambiguity  of 
"  inclination  "  and  of  its  synonyms  has  been  a  fruitful  source 
of  confusion.  It  was  reserved  for  the  metaphysicians  of  the 
present  century  to  establish  the  bounds  between  sensibility, 
.  an  involuntary  function,  and  will.  It  is  important,  however, 
not  to  overlook  the  distinction  ^between  those  choices  which 
are  permanent  states  of  the  will,  and  constitute  the  abiding 
principles  of  character  and  motives  of  action,  and  the  sub- 
sidiary purposes  and  volitions  which  they  dictate.  It  is 
right  to  add  that,  however  Edwards  may  have  owed  to 
Locke  pregnant  hints  on  the  subject  of  the  will,  these  fell 
into  the  richest  soil ;  and  the  doctrine  of  philosophical  ne- 

*  See,  e.  g.,  toI.  v.,  pp.  10,  11. 


2E4  THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF  JONATHAN  EDWAEDS. 

cessity  was  elaborated  and  fortified  by  the  younger  writer 
with  a  much  more  rigid  logic  and  a  far  wider  sweep  of  ar- 
gument than  can  be  claimed  for  Locke's  discussion.  Locke 
modified  liis  opinions  from  one  edition  to  another  ;  and  his 
correspondence  with  Limborch  discloses  the  fact  that  he  was 
himself  not  satisfied  with  the  views  of  the  subject  which  he 
had  presented  in  his  work.  The  conviction  of  Edwards,  on 
the  other  hand,  was  attended  by  no  misgivings,  and  stayed 
with  him  to  the  end  of  life. 

The  resemblance  of  Edwards's  treatise  on  the  Will  to  the 
treatises  of  Hobbes  and  Collins  on  the  same  subject  is  another 
topic  that  merits  attention.  As  to  Hobbes,  Edwards  has  oc- 
casion to  observe  that  he  had  never  read  him.  There  is  no 
probability  that  he  had  ever  seen  a  copy  of  Collins's  Lxquiry, 
Edwards  was  not  the  man  to  conceal  a  real  obligation.  His 
intellectual  resources  were  too  large  to  make  it  requisite  for 
him  to  borrow,  and  no  one  has  ever  questioned  his  thorough 
honesty.  Whatever  similarity  is  found  to  exist  between 
him  and  the  authors  referred  to  is  accidental.  Hobbes, 
like  Edwards,  holds  that  "  he  \s,free  to  do  a  thing,  that  he 
may  do  if  he  have  the  will  to  do  it,  and  may  forbear  if  he  * 
have  the  will  to  forbear  "  * — that  is,  freedom  is  concerned 
not  with  the  genesis,  but  with  the  event,  of  the  choice. 
"  The  last  dictate  of  the  judgment  concerning  the  good  or 
bad  that  may  follow  on  any  action,"  in  agreement  with  Ed- 
wards, "  is  made  the  proximate  efficient  cause  of  the  will's 
determination  on  one  side  or  the  other."  f  The  objection 
that  coimsels,  admonitions,  commands,  and  the  like,  are  vain 
and  useless  on  the  necessitarian  doctrine,  is  met  by  Hobbes 
with  the  retort  that,  on  no  other  doctrine,  can  they  have  any 
effect  at  all.  This  is  precisely  in  the  manner  of  Edwards. 
The  argument  for  necessity  from  the  principle  of  causation, 
applied  to  the  determinations  of  the  will,  is  substantially  the 


*  Works  (Molesworth's  edition),  vol  ii.,  p.  410. 
t  Ibid.,  p.  247. 


THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF   JONATHAN   EDWARDS.  235 

same  in  both  writers.  Collins  brings  forward  the  same 
definition  of  liberty  as  "  a  power  in  man  to  do  as  he  wills, 
or  pleases."  *  He  applies,  also,  the  reductio  ad  dbsurdum  to 
the  statement  that  a  man  can  choose  as  he  pleases :  it  is  an 
identical  proposition,  f  He  seeks  to  prove  the  necessity  of 
volitions  by  bringing  them  under  the  law  of  cause  and  effect, 
and  by  driving  his  antagonists  into  the  admission  that  the 
mind  is  determined  by  causal  agency  to  choose  so  and  not 
otherwise,  the  alternative  being  atheism.  %  This  corresponds 
closely  to  the  reasoning  of  Edwards.  Their  argiiments  from 
the  divine  foreknowledge  are  in  substance  the  same.  § 
Things  must  be  certain  in  order  to  be  foreseen,  and  they  are 
not  certain  unless  antecedent  causes  render  them  certain. 
Persuasions,  appeals,  and  laws,  are  addressed  to  men  only  on 
the  supposition  that  they  tend  to  produce  effects,  or  contain 
within  them  causal  energy.  These  coincidences  between 
Edwards  and  the  authors  above  named  are  really  not  re- 
markable. The  defenders  of  the  doctrine  of  necessity  nat- 
urally take  one  path.  They  demand  an  explanation  of  the 
determination  of  the  will,  so  far  as  it  involves  the  election 
of  one  thing  in  preference  to  another.  They  deny  that  the 
mere  power  of  willing  accounts  for  the  specification  of  the 
choice,  by  which  one  thing  is  taken  and  another  rejected. 
Taking  this  weapon,  the  axiom  of  cause  and  effect,  they 
chase  their  opponents  out  of  every  place  of  refuge.  Edwards 
is  peculiar  only  in  the  surpassing  keenness  and  unsparing 
persistency  with  which  he  carries  on  the  combat,  even  an- 
ticipating defences  against  his  logic  which  had  not  been  as 
yet  set  up.  He  was  anxious  to  demolish  forts  even  before  they 
were  erected.  His  habit  of  taking  up  all  conceivable  objec- 
tions to  the  proposition  which  he  advocates,  in  advance  of  the 
opponent,  is  one  main  source  of  his  strength  as  a  disputant. 
He  not  only  fires  his  own  gun,  but  spikes  that  of  the  enemy. ' 
It  is  far  from  being  true  that  Edwards  was  the  first  to 

*  Inquiry  (London,  1717),  p.  2. 

t  Ibid.,  p.  41.  %  Ibid.,  pp.  58,  59.  §  Ibid.,  p.  83  seq. 


236  THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF  JONATHAN  EDWARDS. 

assert  the  impropriety  of  the  term  "  necessary  "  as  a  predi- 
cate of  acts  of  will,  on  the  ground  that  necessity  presup- 
poses an  opposition  of  the  will,  which,  of  course,  is  precluded 
when  the  occurrence  in  question  is  itself  a  choice.  I  am 
constrained  to .  that  to  which  my  will  is  opposed,  but  which 
nevertheless  occurs.  That  is  necessary  "  which  choice  can- 
not prevent."  *  The  same  objection  is  made  to  the  terms 
"  irresistible,"  "  unavoidable,"  "  inevitable,"  "  unable,"  and 
their  synonyms,  as  descriptive  of  the  determinations  of  the 
will.  I  do  not  find  in  Augustine  this  criticism  of  the  above- 
mentioned  terms  in  any  explicit  form  ;  yet  there  lurks  con- 
tinually under  his  statements  the  feeling  that  underlies  this 
criticism ;  as,  for  instance,  when  he  speaks  of  "  the  most 
blessed  necessity  "  of  not  sinning,  under  which  the  Deity  is 
placed,  "  if  necessity  it  is  to  be  called  " — "  si  necessitas  dicenda 
est."t  But  the  objection  to  all  terms  implying  coercion, 
especially  to  the  word  "  necessity,"  is  set  forth  by  Thomas 
Aquinas  as  clearly  as  by  Edwards.  "  That  which  is  moved 
by  another,"  writes  Thomas,  "  is  said  to  be  constrained 
(cogi),  if  it  is  moved  against  its  ovm  inclination  (contra  in- 
clinationem  propriam)  ;  but  if  it  be  moved  by  another  which 
gives  to  it  its  own  inclination  (quod  sibi  dat  propriam  incli- 

nationem),  it  is  not  said  to  be  constrained So  God 

in  moving  the  will  does  not  constrain  it,  because  he  gives  to 
it  its  own  inclination.  To  be  moved  voluntarily  is  to  be 
moved  of  one's  self,  that  is,  from  an  internal  principle  ;  but 
that  intrinsic  principle  can  be  moved  by  another  principle 
extrinsic  ;  and  so  to  he  moved  of  one^s  self  is  not  inconsistent 
with  being  moved  hy  another. ^"^  % 

It  is  the  doctrine  of  Edwards,  then,  that  the  will  is  de- 
termined by  "  that  view  of  the  mind  which  has  the  greatest 
degree  of  previous  tendency  to  excite  volition."  §    This  an- 

*  Edwards's  Works,  vol.  ii.,  p.  84. 

f  Op.  imp.,  i.,  103. 

X  Summa^  Part  I. ,  Question  5,  Article  4. 

%Works^  vol.  ii.,  p.  25. 


THE  PHILOSOPHT   OF   JONATHAN  EDWAEDS.  237 

tecedent  mental  state  secures  the  result  by  a  strictly  causal 
efficiency.  Moral  necessity  is  distinguished  from  the  natural 
necessity  that  prevails  in  material  nature,  in  that  the  former 
is  concerned  with  mental  phenomena,  with  motives  and  the 
volitions  which  they  produce ;  but  the  difference  "  does  not 
lie  so  much  in  the  nature  of  the  connection^  as  in  the  two 
terms  connected.''''^  It  is  cause  and  effect  in  both  cases. 
To  the  objection  that  morality  and  responsibility  are  sub- 
verted by  this  doctrine,  Edwards  replies  that  men  are  re- 
sponsible for  their  choices,  no  matter  what  the  causes  of 
them  may  be ;  that  moral  quality  inheres  in  the  choices 
themselves,  and  not  in  their  causes.  As  liberty  "  does  not 
consider  anything  of  the  cause  of  the  choice,"  f  so  it  is  with 
moral  accountableness,  with  merit  and  ill-desert.  Sufficient 
that  the  choice  exists  in  the  man  as  an  operation  of  will.  X 
On  no  other  hypothesis  than  the  necessitarian  did  Edwards 
think  it  possible  to  hold  to  the  omniscience  of  God  and  his 
universal  providence  and  government.  Principles  which 
freethinkers  maintained  for  other  ends,  he  defended  as  the 
indispensable  foundations  of  religion. 

Edwards  came  forward  as  the  champion  of  Calvinism 
against  Whitby  and  its  other  English  assailants.  He  in- 
tended "to  bring  the  late  objections  and  outcries  against 
Calvinistic  divinity  to  the  test  of  the  strictest  reasoning."  § 
He  scattered  to  the  winds  the  loosely  defined  notions  of 
free-will  which  made  it  include  the  choosing  of  choices,  and 
choice  from  a  previous  indifference,  or  apart  from  all  influ- 
ence of  motives.  It  is  not  true  that,  out  of  various  possible 
choices,  the  mind  decides  upon,  i.  e.,  chooses  one.  Kor  is 
it  true  that  the  act  of  choice  starts  into  being  independently 
of  inducements.  Although  his  adversaries  must  have  felt 
that  he  took  advantage  of  the  infirmities  of  language,  and 
confuted  what  they  said  rather  than  what  they  meant,  yet  it 


*  Works,  vol.  ii.,  p.  34.  f  Ibid.,  p.  39,  of.  p.  191. 

Jlbid.,  p.  185  seq.  (Part  IV.,  §  1). 

§  Letter  to  Erskine.     Dwight's  Lifey  p.  497. 


238  THE    PHILOSOPHY   OF   JONATHAN   EDWAEDS. 

is  quite  untnie  tliat  he  was  guilty  of  any  conscious  unfairness. 
He  was  not  the  man  purposely  to  surround  himself  with 

.  .  .  .   "  mist,  the  common  gloss 
Of  theologians." 

He  had  no  faith  in  their  conception  of  freedom,  however 
it  might  be  formulated.  But,  in  prosecuting  his  purpose, 
Edwards  set  up  a  philosophy  of  the  will  which  is  not  conso- 
nant with  the  doctrine  that  had  been  held  by  the  main  body 
of  Augustinian  theologians.  It  is  true  that  the  Wittenberg 
Eeformers,  at  the  outset,  and  Calvin,  in  his  earlier  writings, 
especially  the  Institutes,  pushed  predestination  to  the  supra- 
lapsarian  extreme.  The  doctrine  of  Augustine,  however, 
and  the  more  general  doctrine  even  of  Calvinistic  theolo- 
gians, the  doctrine  of  Calvin  himself  and  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly's  creeds,  is  that  a  certain  liberty  of  will  ad 
utrunwis,  or  the  power  of  contrary  choice,  had  belonged  to 
the  first  man,  but  had  disappeared  in  the  act  of  transgression, 
which  brought  his  will  into  bondage  to  evil.  It  was  the 
common  doctrine,  too,  that  in  mankind  now,  while  the  wiU 
is  enslaved  as  regards  religious  obedience,  it  remains  free 
outside  of  this  province,  in  all  civil  and  secular  concerns.  In 
this  wide  domain  the  power  of  contrary  choice  still  subsists. 
But  Edwards's  conception  of  the  will  admits  of  no  such  dis- 
tinction. Freedom  is  as  predicable  of  men  now  as  of  Adam 
before  he  sinned ;  of  religious  morality  as  of  the  affairs  of 
worldly  business ;  of  man  as  of  God.  He  asserts  most  em- 
phatically that  he  holds  men  to  be  possessed  now  of  all 
the  liberty  which  it  is  possible  to  imagine,  or  which  it  ever 
entered  into  the  heart  of  any  man  to  conceive.*  Of  course, 
there  can  have  been  no  loss  of  liberty,  no  forfeiture  of  a 
prerogative  once  possessed.  Philosophical  necessity  belongs 
to  the  very  nature  of  the  will.  Therefore  it  binds  all 
spiritual  beings  alike.     This  is  not  the  philosophy  of  Augus- 

♦  Letter  to  Erskine,  vol.  ii.,  p.  293. 


THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF   JONATHAN   EDWARDS.  239 

tine  or  of  the  Westminster  divines.  They  held  to  a  muta- 
bility of  will  once  belonging  to  man,  but  now  lost ;  to  a 
freedom  pertaining  at  present  to  men  in  one  sphere  of  ac- 
tion, but  not  in  another. 

Kefraining,  for  the  present,  from  comments  on  the  drift 
of  this  philosophical  creed,  we  follow  this  acute  and  power- 
ful thinker  into  another  but  adjacent  field.  IS'ot  satisfied 
with  the  timid,  half-hearted  way  in  which  Watts,  Doddridge, 
and  other  English  Calvinists  of  that  day,  had  attenuated  the 
doctrine  of  original  sin,  in  deference  to  the  attacks  of  the 
Arminians,  Edwards  undertook  to  reclaim  the  ground  which 
had  been  surrendered,  and  to  put  to  rout  the  confident  as- 
sailants. For  their  "  glorying  and  insults "  he  believed 
there  was  no  foundation.*  He  took  up  a  great  theme,  be- 
longing alike  to  philosophy  and  theology,  the  dominion  of 
moral  evil  in  the  race  of  mankind.  It  cannot  be  said  that 
he  does  not  squarely  grapple  with  his  adversaries.  He  fully 
understood  himself,  and  had  the  courage  which  comes  from 
undoubting  conviction.  He  invited  for  his  arguments  the 
closest  scrutiny,  and  only  deprecated  the  objection  that  they 
were  "  metaphysical,"  as  vague  and  impertinent.  "  The  ques- 
tion is  not,"  he  on  one  occasion  remarks,  "  whether  what  is 
said  be  metaphysics,  physics,  logic,  or  mathematics,  Latin, 
English,  French,  or  Mohawk,  but  whether  the  reasoning  be 
good  and  the  arguments  truly  conclusive."  f  His  ardor  is  a 
white  heat  which  never  moves  him  to  substitute  declamation 
for  reasoning.  In  this  treatise  on  "  Original  Sin,"  he  blinks 
no  difficulties  ;  but,  having  established  by  cogent  reasoning 
and  by  Scripture,  with  appeals  to  heathen  as  well  as  Chris- 
tian authority,  the  tremendous  fact  of  sin,  as  a  universal 
characteristic  of  mankind,  he  endeavors  to  prove  that  men 
are  truly,  and  not  by  any  legal  fiction,  judged  to  be  sinful 
from  the  start,  and  literally  guilty  of  the  primal  transgres- 
sion.    To  this  end,  he  seeks  to  bring  the  continuance  of  sin 

*  D wight's  Life^  p.  569.  f  Works,  vol.  ii.,  p.  474. 


240  THE   PHILOSOPHY    OF   JONATHAN   EDWAEDS. 

in  the  individuals  of  the  race,  onward  from  the  beginning  of 
their  personal  life,  under  the  familiar  law  of  habit.  It  is 
analogous  to  the  self -perpetuation  of  any  habit  which  arises 
from  an  initial  act.  To  prove  that  Adam's  act  was  our  act, 
he  launches  out  into  a  bold  speculation  on  the  nature  of 
identity.  Personal  identity,  he  asserts,  is  the  effect  of  the 
divine  will  and  ordinance.  If  it  consists  in  the  sameness  of 
consciousness,  that  is  kept  up  by  divine  acts  from  m9ment  to 
moment.  If  it  be  thought  to  consist  in  the  sameness  of  sub- 
stance, even  this  is  due  to  the  perpetual  divine  preservation ; 
and  preservation  is  not  to  be  distinguished  from  constantly 
repeated  acts  of  creation.  Our  identity  is  a  constituted 
identity,  dependent  upon  the  creative  will,  and  in  this  sense 
arbitrary,  yet  conformed  to  an  idea  of  order.  So  the  indi- 
viduals of  the  human  race  are  the  continuation  of  Adam ; 
they  truly — that  is,  by  the  wiU  and  appointment  of  God — 
constitute  one  moral  whole.  It  is  strictly  true  that  all  par- 
ticipated in  the  act  by  which  "the  species  first  rebelled 
against  God."  *  We  are  not  condemned  for  another's  evil 
choice,  but  for  our  own,  and  the  principle  of  sin  within  us  is 
only  the  natural  consequence  of  that  original  act.  Time 
counts  for  nothing :  the  first  rising  of  evil  inclination  in  us 
is  one  and  the  same  with  the  first  rising  of  evil  inclination 
in  Adam ;  it  is  the  members  participating  in,  and  consent- 
ing to,  the  act  of  the  head.  The  habit  of  sinning  follows 
upon  this  first  rising  of  evil  inclination,  in  us  as  in  Adam. 
Such  is  the  constitution  of  things ;  and  on  the  divine  con- 
stitution, the  persistence  of  individuality,  of  personal  con- 
sciousness and  identity,  equally  depends.  It  is  to  be  noticed 
that,  in  defence  of  his  realistic  theory,  Edwards  does  not  lay 
hold  of  the  traducian  h}^othesis  of  the  evolution  of  souls. 
He  admits  that  souls  are  created ;  but  so  are  consciousness 
and  the  substance  of  our  individual  being  at  every  succes- 
sive instant  of  time.     Like  Anselm,  and  the  schoolmen  gen- 

*  Vol.  il.,  p.  543. 


THE   PHILOSOPHY    OF   JONATHAN   EDWARDS,  241 

erally,  he  is  a  creationist.  It  is  evident  tliat  Locke's  cnrioua 
chapter  on  Identity  and  Diversity  *  put  Edwards  on  the 
track  on  which  he  advanced  to  these  novel  opinions.  Locke 
there  attempts  to  prove  that  sameness  of  consciousness  is  the 
sole  bond  of  identity,  and  that  identity  would  remain  were 
consciousness  disjoined  from  one  substance  and  connected 
with  another.  Edwards's  opinion  is  peculiar 'to  himself,  but 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  initial  impulse  to  the  re- 
flections that  issued  in  it  was  imparted  by  the  discussion  of 
Locke.f 

We  now  turn  to  the  ethical  theory  of  Edwards.  In  his 
masterly  treatise  on  the  Nature  of  True  Yirtue,  he  does 
not  content  himself,  as  philosophers  before  him  had  so  often 
done,  with  the  inquiry.  What  is  the  abstract  quality  of  vir- 
tue, or  the  foundation  of  moral  obligation  ?  but  he  sets  forth 
the  nature  of  virtue  in  the  concrete,  or  the  principle  of 
goodness.  This  he  finds  to  be  benevolence,  or  love  to  intel- 
ligent being.  It  is  love  to  the  entire  society  of  intelligent 
beings  according  to  their  rank,  or,  to  use  his  phrase,  "  the 
amount  of  being  "  which  belongs  to  them.  It  is  thus  a  pro- 
portionate love;  supreme  and  absolute  as  regards  God, 
limited  as  regards  inferior  beings.  Under  this  conception, 
ethics  and  religion  are  inseparately  connected.  True  love 
to  man  is  love  to  him  as  being,  or  as  having  being  in  him- 
self, and  is  indissolubly  connected,  if  it  be  real  and  genuine, 
with  a  proportionately  greater  love  to  God.  This  benevo- 
lence, which  embraces  in  itself  all  goodness,  is  the  fountain 
and  essence  of  specific  virtues.  It  is  described  as  a  propen- 
sity to  being,  a  union  of  heart  to  intelligent  being,  a  con- 
sent to  being,  which  prompts  one  to  seek  the  welfare  of  the 
objects  loved.  It  is  not  synonymous  with  delight  in  the 
happiness  of  others,  but  is  the  spring  of  that  delight.    Now, 

*  Locke's  Essay ^  book  ii.,  c.  27. 

[f  The  influence  of  Berkeley  as  well  as  Locke  is  seen  in  Edwards's  spec- 
ulation.    It  is  really  the  application  of  the  Berkeleian  idea  to  the  mind — 
a  step  which  Berkeley  himself  had  not  taken.] 
11 


242  THE   PHILOSOPHY    OF   JONATHAN   EDWAEDS. 

he  who  actually  exercises  this  love  delights  in  the  same  love 
when  it  is  seen  in  others  ;  and  this  delight  induces  and  in- 
volves an  additional  love  to  them,  the  love  of  complacency. 
Tliere  is  a  spiritual  beauty  in  benevolence  which  is  perceived 
only  through  experience.  The  relish  which  this  beauty  ex- 
cites and  gratifies  is  possible  only  to  him  who  is  himself  be- 
nevolent. There  is  a  rectitude  in  benevolence,  a  fitness  to 
the  nature  of  the  soul  and  the  nature  of  things ;  and  the 
perception  of  this  rectitude  awakens  the  sense  of  obligation, 
and  binds  all  men  to  be  benevolent.  The  natural  conscience 
makes  a  man  uneasy  "  in  the  consciousness  of  doing  that  to 
others  which  he  should  be  angry  with  them  for  doing  to 
him,  if  they  were  in  his  case,  and  he  in  theirs."  This  feel- 
ing may  be  resolved  into  a  consciousness  of  being  inconsis- 
tent with  himself,  of  a  disagreement  with  his  own  nature. 
With  the  feeling  of  approbation  and  disapprobation,  there 
is  joined  a  sense  of  desert,  which  consists  in  a  natural  agree- 
ment, proportion,  and  harmony  between  malevolence  or  in- 
jury and  resentment  and  punishment.  An  essential  ele- 
ment in  Edwards's  whole  theory  is  this  double  excellence  of 
universal  love :  first,  a  rightness  recognized  by  all  men, 
whether  they  be  good  or  bad ;  and  a  peculiar,  transcendent 
beauty  revealed  only  to  the  good,  or  on  the  condition  of  the 
exercise  of  love  as  a  practical  principle.  Of  the  natural  con- 
science in  its  relation  to  love  he  says :  "  Although  it  sees 
not,  or  rather  does  not  taste  its  primary  and  essential  beauty, 
i.  €.,  it  tastes  no  sweetness  in  benevolence  to  being  in  gen- 
eral, simply  considered,  for  nothing  but  general  benevolence 
itself  can  do  that ;  yet  this  natural  conscience,  common  to 
mankind,  may  a^rove  it  from  that  uniformity,  equality, 
and  justice,  which  there  is  in  it ;  and  the  demerit  which  is 
seen  in  the  contrary,  consisting  in  the  natural  agreement  be- 
tween the  contrary,  and  being  hated  of  being-in-general."  * 
The  moral  sense  which  is  common  to  all  men,  and  the  spir- 

•  Vol.  iii.,  p.  132. 


THE   PHILOSOPHY    OF   JONATHAN    EDWARDS.  243 

itual  sense  which  belongs  to  the  benevolent,  may  be  called 
sentiments ;  but  not  with  the  idea  that  they  are  merely  sub- 
jective or  arbitrary,  and  not  correspondent  to  the  objective 
reality.  The  quality  of  Tightness  and  the  quality  of  spirit- 
ual beauty  inhere  in  love  as  intrinsic  attributes.  By  means 
of  this  distinction  between  the  intrinsic  rectitude  and  the 
spiritual  beauty  of  the  virtuous  principle,  Edwards  built  up 
a  foundation  for  his  doctrine  of  spiritual  light,  or  for  that 
mystical  side  which  has  been  pointed  out  in  his  character 
and  in  his  conception  of  religion.  The  reaction  of  benevo- 
lence against  its  opposite  as  being  unrighteous  and  offensive 
to  the  sense  of  spiritual  beauty,  and  as  an  injury  to  the 
beings  on  whom  benevolence  fixes  its  regard,  is  a  form  of 
hatred.  This  hatred  on  the  part  of  God  and  of  all  benevo- 
lent beings  toward  "  the  statedly  and  irreclaimably  evil"  in- 
spires a  feeling  of  satisfaction  in  their  punishment.  Those 
descriptions  in  Edwards  of  the  sufferings  of  incorrigible 
evil-doers  in  the  future  world,  ^and  of  the  contentment  of 
the  righteous  at  beholding  them,  which  grate  on  the  sensi- 
bility of  most  of  the  present  generation,  he  felt  no  difficulty 
in  reconciling  with  the  doctrine  that  impartial  and  univer- 
sal love  is  the  essence  of  virtue. 

The  disinterested  love  which  is  identical  with  virtue  is  the 
antipode  of  self-love.  If  self-love  signifies  nothing  but  a 
man's  loving  what  is  pleasing  to  him,  this  is  only  to  say  that 
he  loves  what  he  loves  ;  since,  with  Edwards,  loving  an  ob- 
ject is  synonymous  with  being  pleased  with  it.  It  is  "  the 
same  thing  as  a  man's  having  a  faculty  of  will."  *  But  the 
proper  meaning  of  self-love  is  regard  to  self  in  distinction 
from  others,  or  regard  to  some  private  interest.  Edwards 
undertakes  to  resolve  all  particular  affections  which  do  not 
involve  a  regard  to  universal  being,  and  a  willingness  that 
the  subordinate  interest  should  give  way  whenever  it  com- 
petes with  the  rights  and  the  interests  of  the  whole,  into 

*  Vol.  iii.,  p.  118. 


244  THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF   JONATHAN   EDWAKDS. 

self-love.  This  is  true  of  habits  of  feeling  and  actions  that 
are  done  at  the  dictate  of  natural  conscience,  which  may  be 
looked  upon  "  as  in  some  sort  arising  from  self-love,  or  self- 
union,"  or  the  uneasy  consciousness  of  being  inconsistent 
with  one's  self.  The  most  questionable  feature  in  Edwards's 
whole  theory  is  the  position  to  which  the  natural  perception 
of  right  and  sense  of  moral  obligation  are  reduced,  in  order 
to  exalt  the  sense  of  spiritual  beauty  as  the  one  necessary  at- 
tendant of  true  virtue.  But  he  is  not  justly  chargeable  with 
displacing  the  particular  affections — love  of  family,  patriot- 
ism, and  the  like — although  Robert  Hall  thinks  that  God- 
win built  up  his  ethical  notions  on  the  reasoning  of  Ed- 
wards, as  Godwin  avowedly  leaned  upon  Edwards  in  his  ex- 
position of  liberty  and  necessity.  * 

In  the  dissertation  on  God)s  Chief  End  in  Creation^ 
which,  like  the  essay  on  the  Nature  of  True  Virtue,  was 
posthumous,  Edwards  "  o'erleaped  these  earthy  bounds,"  and 
sought  to  unveil  the  motive  of  the  Deity  in  calling  the  uni- 
verse into  being.  He  rejects  every  notion  of  an  indigence, 
insufficiency,  and  mutability  in  God,  or  any  dependence  of 
the  Creator  on  the  creature  for  any  part  of  his  perfection  or 
happiness.  Every  pantheistic  hypothesis  of  this  nature  he 
repels.  God  must  be  conceived  of  as  estimating  the  sum 
total  of  his  own  excellence  at  its  real  worth.  This  regard 
for  his  glory,  or  his  glorious  perfections,  not  because  they 
are  his,  but  for  their  own  sake,  is  not  an  unworthy  feeling 
or  motive  to  action.  The  disposition  to  communicate  the 
infinite  fulness  of  good  which  inheres  eternally  in  himself, 
ad  extra,  is  an  original  property  of  his  nature.  This  incited 
him  to  create  the  world.  That  his  attributes  should  be  ex- 
erted and  should  be  known  and  esteemed,  and  become  a 
source  of  joy  to  other  beings,  is  fit  and  proper.  His  delight 
in  his  creatures  does  not  militate  against  his  independence, 


*  Compare  Hall's  Works  (Bolin's  edition),  p.  284  j  Godwin's  Political 
Justice,  vol.  i.,  p.  279  (Dublin,  1793). 


THE   PHILOSOPHY    OF   JONATHAN   EDWAEDS.  245 

since  the  creation  emanates  from  himself,  and  this  delight 
may  be  resolved  into  a  delight  in  himself.  In  God,  the  love 
of  himself  and  the  love  of  the  public  are  not  to  be  distin- 
guished as  in  man,  "  because  God's  being,  as  it  were,  com- 
prehends all."  Nor  is  it  selfish  in  him  to  seek  for  the  holi- 
ness and  happiness  of  the  creature,  out  of  supreme  regard 
to  himself,  or  from  the  esteem  which  he  has  for  that  excel- 
lence, a  portion  of  which  he  imparts  to  them,  and  which  he 
reasonably  desires  to  see  an  object  of  honor,  and  the  source 
of  a  joy  like  his  o\vn.  "  For  it  is  the  necessary  consequence 
of  true  esteem  and  love,  that  we  value  others'  esteem  of  the 
same  object,  and  dislike  the  contrary.  For  the  same  reason, 
God  approves  of  others'  esteem  and  love  of  himself."  The 
(Creature  is  intended  for  an  eternally  increasing  nearness  and 
union  to  God.  Under  this  idea,  his  "  interest  must  be  viewed 
as  one  with  God's  interest,"  and  is  therefore  not  regarded  by 
God  as  a  thing  distinct  and  separate  from  himself.  Thus, 
all  the  activities  of  God  return  to  himself  as  the  final  goal. 

Edwards  was  acquainted  with  Hutcheson.  "The  calm, 
stable,  universal  good-will  to  all,  or  the  most  extensive  be- 
nevolence," and  "  the  relish  and  reputation  of  it,"  or  "  the 
esteem  and  good- will  of  a  higher  kind  to  all  in  whom  it  is 
found,"  are  phrases  of  this  writer  *  which  remind  us  of  the 
American  philosopher.  But  the  scientific  construction  of 
the  theory  of  virtue,  especially  in  the  place  which  love  to 
God  finds  in  it,  is  original  with  Edwards.  It  is  gratifying 
to  notice  the  admiration  which  the  younger  Fichte  expresses 
for  this  essay,  which  is  only  known  to  him  through  the  brief 
sketch  of  Mackintosh.  "  What  he  reports  of  it,"  says  Fichte, 
"  appears  to  me  excellent."  f  He  speaks  of  the  bold  and 
profound  thought  that  God,  as  the  source  of  love  in  all  crea- 
tures, on  the  same  ground  loves  himself  infinitely  more  than 
any  finite  being  ;  and  therefore  in  the  creation  of  the  world 

*  Moral  Philosophy,  vol.  i.,  p.  69. 

f  '*Was  dieser  vonihm  berichtet  finden  wir  votreflaich."  System  der 
Eihik,  i,  544. 


246  THE   PHILOSOPHY    OF   JONATHAN   EDWARDS. 

can  have  no  other  end  than  the  revelation  of  his  own  perfec- 
tion, which,  it  is  to  be  observed,  consists  in  love.  *  "  So," 
concludes  Fichte,  "  has  this  solitary  thinker  of  North  Amer- 
ica risen  to  the  deepest  and  loftiest  ground  which  can  under- 
lie the  principle  of  morals  :  universal  benevolence  which  in 
us,  as  it  were,  is  potentially  latent,  and  in  morality  is  to 
emerge  into  full  consciousness  and  activity,  is  only  the  ef- 
fect of  the  bond  of  love,  which  encloses  us  all  in  God."  The 
degree  or  amount  of  being  is  a  somewhat  obscure  idea; 
nevertheless  the  German  critic  considers  it  a  true  and  pro- 
found thought  that  the  degree  of  the  perfection  of  a  being 
is  to  determine  the  degree  of  love  to  him.  Mackintosh,  to 
whom  Fichte  owed  his  knowledge  of  Edwards,  apparently 
fails,  in  one  passage,  to  apprehend  Edwards's  distinction  be- 
tween love  and  esteem,  or  benevolence  and  moral  compla- 
cency. 

In  the  interesting  letter  which  Edwards  wrote  to  the 
trustees  of  Princeton  College,  he  gives  reasons  for  his  re- 
luctance to  assume  the  office  of  president  of  that  institution, 
which  he  afterward  accepted.  He  explains  that  he  had  al- 
ways been  accustomed  to  study  with  pen  in  hand,  recording 
his  best  thoughts  on  innumerable  subjects  for  his  own  bene- 
fit. Among  the  results  of  this  practice  there  had  grown  up 
in  his  hands  an  unfinished  work,  "  a  body  of  divinity  in  an 
entire  new  method,  being  thrown  into  the  form  of  a  history." 
This  was  nothing  less  than  a  philosophy  of  the  history  of 
mankind,  contemplated  with  reference  to  the  redemption  of 
the  world  by  Christ,  the  centre  toward  which  the  whole  cur- 
rent of  anterior  events  converged,  and  from  which  all  sub- 
sequent events  radiate.  There  were  to  be  interwoven  in  the 
work  "  all  parts  of  divinity,"  in  such  a  method  as  to  exhibit 
to  the  best  advantage  their  "  admirable  contexture  and  har- 
mony." The  conception  was  a  grand  one,  resembling  that 
of  Augustine  in  the  De  dmtate  Dei.     The  treatise,  in  its 

*  Ibid,,  pp.  544,  545. 


THE   PHILOSOPHY    OF    JONATHAN   EDWARDS.  247 

unfinished  state,  was  published  after  the  author's  death,  un- 
der the  title,  A  History  of  tJie  Work  of  Bedemjption,  coti- 
taining  the  Outlines  of  a  Body  of  Divinity ^  including  a 
View  of  Chtcrch  History  in  a  Method  entirely  new.  In  its 
incomplete  form,  and  notwithstanding  the  greater  disadvan- 
tage of  the  author's  limited  leisure  and  opportunity  for  the 
prosecution  of  historical  investigation,  it  remains  an  impres- 
sive monument  of  the  variety  of  his  powers  and  of  the  broad 
range  of  his  studies  and  reflections.  He  proposed  to  unfold 
the  course  of  Divine  Providence  in  all  its  successive  stages, 
from  the  decree  of  creation  to  the  end  of  the  world.  The 
preparation  of  redemption,  the  accomplishment  of  it  through 
the  life  and  death  of  Christ,  and  its  effects,  are  the  three 
divisions  into  which  the  book  is  cast.  He  compares  the 
work  of  redemption,  which  he  undertakes  to  delineate  in  its 
orderly  progress,  to  "  a  temple  that  is  building :  first  the 
workmen  are  sent  forth,  then  the  materials  are  gathered, 
the  ground  is  fitted,  and  the  foundation  laid  ;  then  the  su- 
perstructure is  erected,  one  part  after  another,  J;ill  at  length 
the  top  stone  is  laid  and  all  finished."  ^  Of  course  the  acts 
of  the  drama,  which  are  still  in  the  future,  have  to  be  learned 
from  prophecy. 

We  have  seen  that  Edwards  believed  in  predestination  in 
the  extreme  or  supralapsarian  form.  He  encloses  in  the 
iron  network  of  philosophical  necessity  all  intelligent  beings. 
Yerbal  objections  to  the  term  "  necessity,"  and  the  ascription 
of  "a  natural  ability "  to  voluntary  agents,  do  not  subtract 
an  iota  from  the  real  significance  of  the  dogma.  The  sov- 
ereignty of  God  in  the  realm  of  choices,  as  in  the  realm  of 
matter,  and  his  omnipresent  agency,  are  fundamental  in  his 
creed.  To  the  charge  that  their  principles  are  destructive 
of  morality,  the  theological  advocates  of  predestination  have 
triumphantly  appealed  to  facts.  Where  have  the  obliga- 
tions of  morality  been  felt  more  than  among  the  Calvinists 

*  Vol.  iii.,  p.  171. 


248  THE   PHILOSOPHY    OF   JONATHAN   EDWAEDS. 

of  Geneva  and  of  Holland,  the  Huguenots  of  France,  the 
Scottish  Covenanters,  and  the  Puritans  of  England  and  of 
New  England  ?  If  the  doctrine  of  necessity  has  borne  bad 
fruits  in  the  lives  of  free-thinkers  who  have  espoused  it, 
such  is  not  the  case  as  regards  the  professors  of  the  Calvin - 
istic  creed.  It  must  be  observed,  however,  that  it  is  not 
from  their  favorite  dogma  that  extreme  Calvinists  have 
drawn  their  ethics.  Their  morah  sense  has  been  invigorated 
from  other  sources.  The  Stoics  believed  in  fate,  but  were 
personally  upright  and  conscientious.  They  borrowed  their 
ethics  from  earlier  philosophers,  and  their  morals  stood  in 
no  genetic  relation  to  their  metaphysics.  With  Calvinists, 
predestination  stands  as  the  correlate  of  the  sense  of  absolute 
dependence,  of  faith  in  the  control  of  Divine  Providence, 
and  of  gratitude  for  grace  as  the  source  of  all  that  is  good 
within  them.  Predestination  is  an  inference  rather  than  a 
premise.  Macaulay  says  of  William  III. :  "  The  tenet  of 
predestination  was  the  keystone  of  his  religion.  He  even 
declared  that,  if  he  were  to  abandon  that  tenet,  he  must 
abandon  with  it  all  belief  in  a  superintending  Providence, 
and  must  become  a  mere  Epicurean."  *  Calvinists  have  not 
piled  up  tome  upon  tome  of  theological  controversy,  they 
have  not  pined  in  dungeons  and  faced  death  on  the  battle- 
field, for  the  sake  of  a  merely  speculative  notion.  It  is  the 
moral  truth  for  which  it  stands  in  their  minds  as  the  logical 
equivalent,  that  has  made  them  so  strenuous  in  the  mainte- 
nance of  it. 

Julius  Miiller,  one  of  the  ablest  of  recent  theologians,  has 
well  remarked  that,  while  the  supralapsarian  conception, 
by  which  the  will  is  held  to  be  determined  to  good  or  to 
evil,  in  the  first  man  as  in  all  others,  by  exterior  causes, 
might  have  been  held,  and  was  held,  at  a  former  day,  in 
conjunction  with  a  sincere  theism  ;  such  a  union  of  opposites 
at  present  would  not  be  possible.     Pantheism  would  now  be 

*  History  of  England^  vol.  ii.,  p.  149  (New  York,  1849). 


THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF    JONATHAN   EDWARDS.  249 

connected  with  such  a  philosophical  tenet.  The  power  of 
God,  acting  in  man  through  the  machinery  of  motives, 
would  be  held  to  be  the  sole  efficient.  IS^aj,  all  things 
would  be  traced  to  impersonal  agency.  Personality  would 
be  considered  merely  phenomenal.  The  idea  of  creative 
action  would  be  supplanted  by  that  of  emanation. 

The  doctrine  of  Edwards,  apart  from  all  theological 
prejudice,  fails  to  satisfy  the  generality  of  mankind,  when 
it  is  set  up  as  a  complete  and  exclusive  solution  of  the 
problem  of  liberty  and  necessity.  He  labors  hard  to  prove 
that  common  sense  is  with  him,  but  he  labors  in  vara. 
It  is  one  thing,  however,  to  utter  a  moral  protest,  and 
another  to  fui-nish  a  logical  answer  or  a  valid  rectifica- 
tion. 

Certain  eminent  theologians  of  ]^ew  England  In  later 
times  have  asserted  the  power  of  contrary  choice  as  existing 
ever  in  connection  with  a  previous  certainty  of  the  determi- 
nation of  the  will  being  what  it  actually  is.  They  have 
maintained  that  motives,  the  internal  antecedents  of  choice, 
constitute  a  special  order  of  causes,  which  are  distinguished 
from  all  others  by  giving  the  certainty,  but  not  the  neces- 
sity, of  the  action  which  follows  them.  On  this  theory  they 
claim  that  a  foundation  is  laid  for  the  practical  truth  rela- 
tive to  God's  providence  and  human  dependence,  at  the 
same  time  that  freedom  and  responsibility  are  left  untouched. 
Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  in  his  Remarks  on  CoUins's  book,  pre- 
sents the  leading  points  of  this  theory.  Clarke  asserts  that 
there  exists  a  principle  of  self-motion  in  man,  a  power  of 
initiating  motion,  or  of  voluntary  self-determination.  This 
power  is  not  determined  as  to  the  mode  of  its  exertion  by 
anything  but  itself  ;  that  would  involve  a  contradiction.  It 
is  self -moving.  It  is  absurd  to  attribute  efficiency  to  the 
mental  states  which  are  called  motives.  If  they  had  effi- 
ciency, man  would  be  like  a  clock,  or  a  pair  of  scales,  endowed 
with  sensation  or  perception.  He  would  not  be  an  agent. 
What  we  call  motives  are  bare  antecedents,  or  occasional 
11* 


250  THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF   JONATHAN   EDWARDS. 

causes.*  Clarke  sliows  that  the  opposite  supposition  in- 
volves an  infinite  regress  of  effects  with  no  cause  at  all. 
Moreover,  uniformity  of  action  does  not  imply  a  necessity  in 
the  connection  of  the  act  with  its  antecedents.  "  The  expe- 
rience of  a  man's  ever  doing  what  he  judges  reasonable  to 
do,  is  not  at  all  an  experience  of  his  being  under  any  neces- 
sity so  to  do.  For  concomitancy  in  this  case  is  no  evidence 
at  all  of  physical  connection."  f  The  argument  for  necessity 
from  God's  prescience,  Clarke  seeks  to  confute  by  maintain- 
ing the  previous  certainty  of  acts,  even  on  the  supposition 
that  they  are  free,  and  claiming  for  God  "  an  infallible  judg- 
ment concerning  contingent  truths,"  which  is  only  a  power 
that  we  ourselves  possess,  carried  to  perfection.  This  power 
of  judging,  however,  Clarke  subjects  to  no  searching  analy- 
sis ;  arid  his  reasoning  is  hardly  sufficient  to  meet  the  objec- 
tions to  the  possibility  of  foreknowing  contingent  actions, 
which  are  advanced  by  Edwards.ij:  The  later  ]^ew  Eng- 
land philosophy  postulates,  however,  a  certainty  which  is 
produced  by  the  antecedent  causes,  taken  in  the  aggregate. 
Can  we  conceive  of  a  causal  influence  which  makes  an  event 
infallibly  certain,  and  yet  not  necessary  ?  On  this  question 
the  validity  of  the  later  New  England  theorem  seems  to 
hinge. 

The  Scottish  philosophy  of  Sir  William  Hamilton  solves 
the  problem  by  affirming  the  inconceivability  of  both  free- 
dom and  necessity,  on  the  ground  that  the  first  implies  a 
beginning  of  motion,  and  the  other  an  infinite  regress  of  ef- 
fects ;  and  it  accepts  the  truth  of  free-will  on  the  basis  of 
our  moral  feelings,  the  feelings  of  self-approbation  and  re- 
morse, praise  and  blame,  which  presuppose  moral  liberty. 

A  middle  position  is  that  taken  by  able  philosophers  and 
tlieologians,  of  whom  the  late  Dr.  Mozley  is  a  leading  repre- 
sentative.    We  have  an  apprehension  of  two  truths  which 

*  Remarks,  etc.,  p.  9  (London,  1717). 

f  Ibid.,  p.  25. 

X  Treatise  on  the  Will,  Part  II.,  §  12. 


THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF   JONATHAN    EDWAEDS.  251 

appear  irreconcilable  with  one  another ;  but  on  this  ground 
solely,  that  our  idea  or  apprehension,  in  either  case,  is  ob- 
scure, imperfect,  an  incipient  and  not  a  completed  concep- 
tion. These  truths  are  therefore  mysterious.  They  are 
not  a  zero  in  our  apprehension,  nor  are  they  fully  compre- 
hended. Hence  our  deductions  from  them  are  subject  to  a 
corresponding  imperfection.  They  may  serve  us,  up  to  a 
certain  point,  as  the  groundwork  of  moral  truth ;  but  neither 
can  be  used  to  subvert  that  moral  truth  which  is  related  to 
the  other.  When  moral  truth  is  contradicted  by  logic,  there 
is  a  flaw  in  the  logic  ;  and  this  is  traceable  to  the  imperfect 
character  of  the  notions  which  enter  into  the  premises. 
Mozley  would  probably  sanction  the  dictum  of  Coleridge 
that,  when  logic  seems  to  clash  with  moral  intuitions,  the 
superior  authority  belongs  to  conscience.  It  need  hardly  be 
said  that  the  problem  belongs  not  exclusively  to  theology — 
it  belongs  to  philosophy  as  well.  The  perplexities  that  per- 
tain to  it  are  not  escaped  by  those  who  renounce  the  Chris- 
tian faith. 

It  is  a  growing  conviction  of  students  of  Scripture  and  of 
philosophy  that,  on  the  subject  before  us,  there  is  more  than 
one  hemisphere  of  truth.  That  which  both  the  Calvinist 
and  Arminian  chiefly  prized  was  truth,  not  error.  What 
each  contended  against  was  the  supposed  implications  of  a 
proposition  which  was  valued  by  his  opponent  from  its  re- 
lation to  a  set  of  implications  of  a  different  sort.  Each  con- 
nected with  his  antagonist's  thesis  inferences  which  that 
antagonist  repudiated.  One  hemisphere  of  truth  Jonathan 
Edwards  saw  with  clearness,  and  upheld  with  a  strength  of 
argument  and  a  subdued  but  intense  fervency  which  have 
never  been  surpassed. 

Edwards  died  at  the  age  of  fifty-four,  three  months  after 
he  had  entered  upon  the  duties  of  president  at  Princeton. 
He  was  an  indefatigable  student,  working  often  for  thirteen 
hours  in  the  day,     A  biographer  says  of  him  that  perhaps 


262  THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF   JONATHAN  EDWARDS. 

there  never  was  a  man  more  constantly  retired  from  the 
world.  lie  was  never  physically  strong.  Not  at  all  morose, 
but  courteous  and  gentle  in  his  ways,  he  was  yet  taciturn, 
and  he  himself  refers  to  what  he  calls  "  the  disagreeable 
dulness  and  stiffness  of  his  demeanor,  unfitting  him  for  con- 
versation and  contact  with  the  world."*  His  countenance 
is  not  such  as  we  should  expect  a  polemical  theologian  to 
wear,  but  is  more  like  that  given  by  the  painters  to  St.  John, 
according  thus  with  the  deep  mystical  vein  of  which  we  have 
spoken.  He  is  the  doctor  angelicus  among  our  theologians, 
and,  had  he  lived  in  the  thirteenth  century  instead  of  the 
eighteenth,  he  would  have  been  decorated  by  admiring  pupils 
with  such  a  title.  If  it  be  true  that,  in  the  last  century, 
Berkeley,  Hume,  and  Kant,  are  the  three  great  names  in 
philosophy,  there  might  have  been  added  to  the  brief  cata- 
logue, had  he  chosen  to  devote  himself  exclusively  to  meta- 
physics, the  name  of  Jonathan  Edwards.  On  the  memorial 
window  in  honor  of  him,  in  the  chapel  of  Yale  College,  of 
which  he  is  the  most  illustrious  graduate,  stands  the  just  in- 
scription: "lonathan  Edwards  summi  in  ecclesia  ordinis 
vates  fuit,  rerum  sacrarum  philosophus  qui  saeculorum  ad- 
mirationem  movet,  Dei  cultor  mystice  amantissimus :  hie 
studebat,  docebat." 


*  Dwight's  UJe,  p.  568. 


CHANNING   AS   A   PHILOSOPHEK   AND   THEOLOGIAN.        253 


CHANNING  AS  A  PHILOSOPHER  AND  THEO- 
LOGIAN.* 

Channtng  is  regarded  by  common  consent  as  the  most 
eminent  representative  of  the  Unitarian  movement  in  this 
country.  It  is  true  that  others  among  the  gifted  men  who 
have  been  conspicuous  in  that  school  have  equalled  or  sur- 
passed him  in  some  of  the  titles  to  distinction.  There  have 
been  in  their  number  more  eloquent  preachers.  The  young- 
er Buckminster  was  one,  of  whom  Edward  Everett  declared 
that  he  had  the  most  melodious  voice  "  that  ever  passed  the 
lips  of  man  ; "  f  of  whom,  also,  one  of  the  ablest  of  the  early 
Unitarian  preachers,  who  has  since  rendered  most  honorable 
service  in  literature  and  in  public  life — Dr.  Palfrey — has 
said  that  his  pulpit  utterances  approached  near  "  to  what 
we  imagine  of'  a  prophet's  or  an  angel's  inspiration."  J 
Li  the  graces  of  style  and  delivery,  according  to  the 
taste  of  that  time,  Channing  was  outdone  by  the  youth- 
ful Everett  himself,  in  the  short  time  in  which  the  latter 
served  as  the  successor  of  Buckminster  in  the  Brattle  Street 
church.  No  doubt,  Channing's  manner  was  marked  by  a 
glow  of  chastened  earnestness,  indicating  deep  emotions 
held  under  restraint,  and  thus  had  a  peculiar  fascination  of 
its  own.  Sometimes,  though  rarely,  he  broke  out  in  a  more 
impassioned  strain.  Of  a  sermon  preached  by  him  in  New 
York,  in  1826,  an  admiring  listener  writes :  "  The  man  was 
full  of  fire,  and  his  body  seemed,  under  some  of  his  tre- 

'*  An  Article  in  The  International  Review  for  July,  1879. 
f  Memoirs  of  the  BuckminaterSf  p.  396. 
X  Ibid.,  p.  481. 

-"      OF  THE         r 

IVERSITY 


254        CHANNING    AS    A    PHILOSOPHER   AND    THEOLOGIAN. 

mendous  sentences,  to  expand  into  that  of  a  giant ;  .  .  .  . 
his  face  was,  if  any  thing,  more  meaning  than  his  words."  * 
If  there  were  others  who  had  more  of  the  qnalifications 
considered  to  be  characteristic  of  the  clerical  orator  than 
were  possessed  by  Channing,  it  is  also  the  fact  that,  as  a 
theological  scholar,  he  was  much  surpassed  by  Andrews  Nor- 
ton; in  familiarity  with  philosophical  and  general  litera- 
ture, by  George  Ripley  ;  and  in  a  certain  cautious  accuracy 
and  weight  of  reasoning  in  moral  science,  by  James  Walker. 
~Nor  in  devoutness  of  spirit  does  he  excel  the  younger  Henry 
"Ware  and  Ephraim  Peabody.  Those  who  knew  Channing 
remarked  in  him  something  delicate,  fastidious,  patrician, 
notwithstanding  his  humane  sympathy ;  and  hence  in  the 
aptitude  to  reach  directly  the  common  mind  he  was  out- 
stripped by  Theodore  Parker,  whose  robust  energy  and  racy 
dialect  better  fitted  him  for  contact  with  the  multitude. 
But  Channing  unites  in  himself  various  characteristics 
which  conspire  to  give  him  pre-eminence.  A  clear  mind, 
not  wanting  in  imaginative  warmth,  a  transparent,  natural 
style,  neither  slovenly  nor  overwrought,  the  sympathies  and 
attainments  of  a  man  of  letters,  even  though  he  was  not 
widely  read — are  manifest  in  his  writings.  Superadded  to 
these  qualities,  there  was  a  sanctity  of  spirit  which  was  felt 
by  those  who  heard  him  in  the  pulpit,  or  met  him  even  casual- 
ly in  conversation.  It  was  not  simply  that  he  was  sincere,  and 
that  he  spoke  in  the  accents  of  conviction.  It  was  not  only 
that  he  was  above  the  influence  of  personal  motives,  like 
the  love  of  praise  and  the  dread  of  censure,  and  that  he  had 
a  courage  corresponding  to  his  convictions — a  necessary  at- 
tribute in  a  popular  leader — ^which  he  exemplified  in  an  in- 
spiriting letter  to  Henry  Ware,  Jr.,  when  the  latter  was  de- 
sponding over  the  poor  outlook  for  their  cause  in  New 
York,  and  in  other  more  serious  emergencies.f     Channing's 

*  Life  of  Henry  Ware^  Jr.^  vol.  i.,  p.  219. 
f  Ibid.,  p.  133. 


CHANNING    AS    A   PHILOSOPHER   AND   THEOLOGIAN.         255 

eminence  is  chiefly  due,  first,  to  the  elevated  fervor  which 
inspired  his  teaching,  and  which  was  of  inestimable  advan- 
tage in  a  movement  in  which  the  intellectual  factor  stood  in 
so  high  a  ratio  to  the  religious ;  and,  secondly,  to  the  cir- 
cumstance that  he  embodied  in  himself  so  fully  the  ethical 
and  philanthropic  impulse  which  principally  constituted  the 
positive  living  force  of  the  Unitarian  cause.  Following  out 
the  humanitarian  tendency,  he  acquired,  at  home  and 
abroad,  a  high  and,  in  the  main,  a  deserved  fame  as  the 
champion  of  justice  in  opposition  to  slavery  and  other  social 
evils.     But  I  am  to  speak  of  him  chiefly  as  a  theologian. 

Eeally  to  do  justice  to  the  subject,  it  would  be  requisite 
to  review  the  history  of  religious  thought  in  l^ew  England 
from  the  beginning.  But  this  broad  theme  can  be  only 
briefly  touched  upon.  How  the  Congregationalists,  the  de- 
scendants of  the  first  settlers  and  proprietors  of  the  soil, 
forming  a  united,  enlightened  body,  having  in  their  hands 
the  great  seats  of  education,  Harvard  and  Yale,  at  length 
divided  into  hostile  camps,  existing  side  by  side  in  a  state 
of  ecclesiastical  non-intercourse,  is  a  topic  too  large  to  be 
satisfactorily  treated  here.  In  England  and  in  New  Eng- 
land the  eighteenth  century  was  signalized  by  a  reaction 
against  the  theological  tenets  of  the  seventeenth.  In  the 
Church  of  England,  Calvinism  had  given  way  to  the  creed 
of  Arminius.  Among  dissenters  the  Calvinistic  doctrines 
were  feebly  and  apologetically  defended  by  men  of  mod- 
erate theological  ability,  like  Watts  and  Doddridge.  The 
obnoxious  points  of  the  Genevan  creed  were, softened  down, 
in  a  deprecatory  spirit,  to  accommodate  its  adversaries. 
Watts,  though  inimical  to  Socinians,  himself  abandoned  the 
orthodox  formulas  of  the  Trinity,  and  broached  on  that 
subject  a  peculiar  notion  of  his  own  devising.  The  chief 
metaphysician  of  the  day.  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  was  an  Ar- 
minian  and  an  Arian.  Locke's  writings  acquired  more  and 
more  influence,  and  these  were  antagonistic  to  the  main 
points  of  what  had  been  counted  the  Evangelical  theology. 


256        CHANNING   AS   A   PHILOSOPHER   AND   THEOLOGIAN. 

In  l^ew  England,  the  closing  part  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury— the  era  of  the  Mathers,  who,  whatever  may  have 
been  their  virtues,  were  not  equal  in  mental  stature  to  the 
Cottons  and  Hookers  of  the  earlier  age — ^was  lamentably 
distinguished  by  the  outbreaking  of  the  witchcraft  delusion. 
When  we  pass  into  the  eighteenth  century,  the  atmosphere 
rapidly  changes.  Old  opinions  gradually  relax  their  hold 
upon  the  faith  of  many.  The  English  contemporary  writ- 
ers are  imported  and  read.  The  characteristic  points  of 
Calvinism  are  less  frequently  and  more  vaguely  inculcated. 
Whitby,  Dr.  John  Taylor,  and  radical  anti-Trinitarians  like 
Emlyn  and  Priestley,  are  brought  in,  and  some  of  them  find 
so  many  readers  that  they  are  reprinted.  What  was  called 
Arminianism,  which  was  often  more  a  silent  ignoring  than 
an  explicit  rejection  of  the  Calvinistic  opinions — which  in- 
volved an  impatience  of  creeds,  a  proclamation  of  the  rights 
of  free  thought  and  of  the  duty  of  toleration  for  wide  di- 
versities of  religious  opinion,  and  which  laid  more  stress  in 
pulpit  teaching  on  moral  precepts  than  on  theological  doc- 
trines— prevailed  widely  among  the  ministers  of  Kew  Eng- 
land, and  was  the  seed-plot  out  of  which  Unitarianism  was 
developed.  In  Boston  Mayhew  and,  later  in  the  century, 
Freeman,  the  minister  of  King's  Chapel,  were  outspoken 
anti-Trinitarians ;  and  they  did  not  stand  alone. 

Meantime  there  was  a  rally  of  the  defenders  of  the  old 
system,  under  the  lead  of  Jonathan  Edwards  and  his  theolo- 
gical disciples,  and  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  great 
revival  of  1740,  when  the  persuasive  eloquence  of  White- 
field  reinforced  the  teaching  of  the  IS'ew  England  ministers 
who  were  strongly  averse  to  the  Arminian  way  of  thinking. 
But  the  revival  was  extensively  opposed  as  well  as  be- 
friended. By  emboldening  the  zeal  of  the  Calvinists,  by 
putting  new  weapons  of  defence  into  their  hands — especially 
through  the  Avritings  of  Edwards  and  his  followers — and  by 
giving  them  in  this  way  renewed  confidence  in  their  cause, 
the  Edwardean  movement  probably  accelerated  rather  than 


CHANNING    AS    A   PHILOSOPHER   AND   THEOLOGIAN.         257 

hindered  the  rupture  of  the  Congregational  brotherhood  of 
ministers  and  churches.  This  effect  was  produced  hj  the 
sharpening  of  the  antagonism  which  existed  between  the 
two  diverse  types  of  religious  belief.  One  of  them  could 
not  crystallize  without  a  like  effect  on  the  other.  The  tra- 
ditional Calvinism  roused  itself  from  slumber,  buckled  on 
its  new  armor,  and  took  the  offensive.  It  had  assumed  a 
more  clearly  defined  position,  w^hich  it  felt  itself  perfectly 
competent  to  maintain  against  assailants.  Moreover,  in  the 
practical  administration  of  the  gospel,  the  revival  method 
was  introduced,  so  that  the  more  zealous  tone  of  preaching, 
and  the  more  active  measures  adopted  for  making  converts 
— changes  which  the  Moderates  discountenanced  as  "  enthusi- 
asm " — widened  the  breach  between  the  two  sections  of  the 
I^ew  England  Church. 

Another  influence  that  tended  to  precipitate  a  conflict  was 
the  spread  in  Eastern  'New  England  of  the  Hopkinsian 
theology,  one  of  the  later  fruits  of  the  theological  activity 
of  Jonathan  Edwards.  This,  in  some  of  its  features — as, 
for  example,  in  its  doctrine  of  a  general  in  opposition  to  a 
limited  Atonement — was  a  mitigated  form  of  Calvinism, 
and  was  so  characterized  by  Channing  himself.  But  the 
cardinal  peculiarity  of  the  Calvinistic  system — the  idea  of 
divine  sovereignty — it  presented  in  extreme  forms  of  state- 
ment, with  no  attempt  to  qualify  it  by  clothing  it  in  mys- 
tery, by  connecting  it  with  any  supposed  counter  truth,  or 
by  cloaking  it  under  conciliatory  phrases.  Edwards,  in 
maintaining  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  had  ventured  to 
apply  the  Berkeleian  idea  to  the  mind,  which  the  founder 
of  that  philosophy  never  had  thought  of  doing.  This  exal- 
tation of  God's  power  at  the  expense  of  man's  agency,  if 
consistently  carried  out,  would  issue  in  a  form  of  Pantheism 
— that  form  which  merges  human  personality  in  the  divine. 
It  is  the  opinion  of  most  philosophical  critics  of  Edwards, 
that  the  real  drift  of  his  treatise  on  the  Will  is  in  the  same 
direction.     It  is  doubtful  whether  any  of  the  Hopkinsian 


258       CHANNING    AS    A   PHILOSOPHER    AND   THEOLOGIAN. 

leaders  were  actual  adherents  of  the  Berkeleian  theory  ;  still 
less  probable  that  they  consciously  carried  it  so  far  beyond  the 
intention  of  it&  author — although  Berkeley's  theory  of  per- 
ception had  a  decided  influence  on  some  of  the  'New  England 
divines.  But  the  ideas  of  Edwards — even  his  scattered 
hints — were  subsequently  very  fruitful  in  the  minds  of  his 
disciples.  The  Hopkinsians  attributed  the  moral  choices  of 
men — evil  choices  as  well  as  good — to  "  divine  efficiency." 
President  Dwight  wrote  against  Emmons  a  sermon  to  show 
that  the  mind  is  not  "  a  chain  of  exercises,"  and  significantly 
spoke  of  theology  in  certain  quarters  as  verging  towards 
Pantheism.  Whatever  was  the  real  intent  of  the  Hopkin- 
sian  writers,  however  much  we  are  to  set  down  to  the  credit 
(or  discredit)  of  ill-chosen  phraseology,  they  made  on  the 
public,  notwithstanding  their  verbal  assertions  of  human 
power  or  "  natural  ability,"  the  impression  of  teaching  that 
moral  choices,  bad  and  good,  are  literally  produced  by  a  cre- 
ative act  of  God.  Coupled  with  these  extravagant  views 
was  naturally  connected  the  idea  of  "  submission  to  God  " 
as  the  first  and  supreme  act  of  human  duty,  preceding  faith 
in  the  Pedeemer ;  and  this  submission,  it  was  held,  must 
take  the  form  of  a  willingness  to  be  cast  off  for  ever,  if  the 
glory  of  God  should  require  it.  Man  is  condemned  by  the 
divine  law,  they  said :  he  must  condemn  himself,  therefore ; 
and  since  he  deserves  the  full  penalty,  he  must  be  willing  to 
endure  it :  otherwise,  he  is  not  in  full  s}Tnpathy  with  the 
divine  justice  and  government.  But  the  moment  that  he 
reaches  this  acme  of  submission  he  becomes  a  fit  subject  of 
mercy.  Perhaps  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the 
church,  it  was  made  by  Christian  pastors  a  necessary  condi- 
tion of  being  saved  that  one  should  be  "willing  to  be 
damned."  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  exaggeration  of 
Calvinism  in  the  direction  of  divine  power  and  sovereignty, 
the  sharp,  relentless  formulating  of  these  obnoxious  dogmas^ 
and  the  obtrusion  of  them  in  season  and  out  of  season,  had 
something  to  do  in  provoking  the  doctrinal  reaction  and  re- 


•     CHANNING    AS    A    PniLOSOPHER    AND    THEOLOGIAN.         259 

volt,  although  the  main  cause  was  deeper  and  of  a  more 
general  nature. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  Unitarian  movement  was  con- 
fined chiefly  to  Eastern  Xew  England,  and  did  not  extend 
into  Western  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut.  In  Connecti- 
cut there  were  never  more  than  two  or  three  Unitarian 
churches,  and  these  in  obscure  towns.  One  ground  of  this 
fact  is,  that  in  that  State  the  Episcopal  Church  struck  a 
deeper  root  than  in  Massachusetts.  For  all  who  might  dis- 
like the  style  of  preaching  and  the  peculiar  measures  which 
characterize  what  is  called  "  revivalism,"  with  its  exciting 
appeals  and  its  prying  interrogation  of  individuals  as  to  their 
religious  experience,  and  for  all  who  recoiled  from  rigorous 
metaphj^sical  definitions  of  religious  truth,  the  door  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  Connecticut  stood  open.  Here  was  a 
church  with  an  evangelical  creed  and  evangelical  w^orship, 
where  those  who  were  disafPected  with  Puritan  ways,  old  or 
new,  could  find  a  quiet  harbor.  Another  reason  for  the  dif- 
ference of  which  I  speak,  lay  in  the  circumstances  which 
gave  to  the  Edwardeans  a  complete  ascendancy  in  Connecti- 
cut. The  old  Arminianism  was  not  so  strong  or  so  strongly 
intrenched  there  as  in  Eastern  Massachusetts.  The  Calvin- 
ists  of  the  older  school,  from  their  greater  fear  of  Arminian 
doctuine,  were  inclined  to  coalesce  with  the  followers  of 
Edwards,  as  is  seen  in  the  case  of  President  Clap,  of  Yale 
College  (1739-1766).  President  Stiles,  of  the  same  college 
(1777-1795),  was  more  of  a  latitudinarian  in  his  opinions 
and  affiliations  ;  he  looked  back  on  the  Pevival  "  as  the  late 
period  of  enthusiasm."  But  he  was  succeeded  by  Dwight, 
whose  accession^ to  the  presidency  secured  the  complete  as- 
cendancy of  the  school  of  Edwards.  The  moderation  of 
Dwight  in  his  theological  statements,  his  strenuous  opposi- 
tion to  Hopkinsian  extravagances,  and,  more  than  all,  his 
commanding  influence  as  a  preacher  and  an  instructor  of 
theological  students,  contributed  much  towards  keeping  the 
Congregational  churches  and  ministers  in  the  old  path.    This 


260       CHANNING    AS   A    PHILOSOPHER   AND    THEOLOGIAN. 

result,  however,  might  not  have  occurred  had  there  been 
that  deep  and  varied  preparation  for  a  doctrinal  revolution 
which  had  been  going  forward  in  Boston  and  its  neighbor- 
hood through  the  greater  part  of  the  eighteenth  century. 

If  we  would  understand  the  Unitarian  schism,  we  must 
take  into  account  the  fact  that  there  were  not  only  two  in- 
terpretations of  the  Bible  which  came  into  collision,  but  that 
there  were,  at  the  same  time,  two  types  of  culture.  Unita- 
rianism,  as  it  has  appeared  in  history,  has  been  conjoined 
with  no  single  form  of  church  polity.  It  has  sprung  up  in 
the  midst  of  Anglican  Episcopacy.  It  has  sprung  up  at 
Geneva,  in  connection  with  Presbyterianism,  and  close  by 
Calvin's  grave.  But  it  has  frequently  gone  hand  in  hand 
with  literary  criticism  and  belles-lettres  cultivation.  This  was 
the  case  in  the  Italian  Unitarianism  of  the  sixteenth  (fentury, 
which  arose  out  of  the  Renaissance  culture,  and  in  the  Uni- 
tarianism that  spread  so  widely  among  the  gentry  of  Poland. 
The  same  was  conspicuously  true  of  the  Unitarian  party  in 
IN'ew  England.  There  grew  up  about  Boston  and  Cambridge 
a  method  of  biblical  criticism  which  was  nourished  by  the 
study  of  Griesbach,  and  of  the  Arminian  scholars  of  an  ear- 
lier date.  In  connection  with  these  studies  there  was  a  new 
and  wider  range  of  literary  activity,  and  an  altered  style  and 
standard  of  literary  and  aesthetic  training.  Dwight  and  the 
elder  Buckminster  had  been  fellow-students  and  tutors  to- 
gether at  Yale  College,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  last  century. 
They  broke  loose  from  the  metaphysical  style  of  discussion 
which  had  been  in  vogue  before  in  the  pulpit,  and  fos- 
tered the  reading  of  the  contemporary  English  classics.  But 
they  still  exhibit  a  stiff  and  somewhat  tumid  quality  of  style. 
In  the  sermons  of  the  younger  Buckminster  we  find  that 
these  faults  have  been  outgrown  ;  although  even  he  expresses 
himself  with  a  certain  formality,  and  with  an  avoidance  of 
the  vocabulary  of  common  life.  From  these  remaining  fet- 
ters Channing  escaped,  thereby  evincing  the  continued  ad- 
vance of  literary  taste.     He  speaks  somewhere  of  the  habit 


CHANNING    AS    A    PHILOSOPHER   AND    THEOLOGIAN.         261 

that  had  prevailed  of  shunning  familiar  words  as  if  they  had 
been  soiled  by  common  use.  In  his  own  style  there  is  noth- 
ing artificial  and  nothing  slovenly.  As  the  Unitarian  move- 
ment went  forward  to  later  stages,  the  changes  in  the  t}^e 
of  literary  culture  became  very  decided  and  very  inliuential. 
But  at  the  outset,  at  the  epoch  when  Channing  began  his 
career,  one  feels,  in  looking  at  the  writers  on  the  Unitarian 
side,  that  they  have  passed  beyond  the  point  of  bending  en- 
tranced over  the  pages  of  Sir  Charles  Grandison,  and  are 
likely  soon  to  become  quite  insensible  to  the  attractions  of 
Miss  Hannah  More.  Theodore  Parker  says  of  Unitarian- 
ism  :  "  The  protest  began  among  a  class  of  cultivated  men 
in  the  most  cultivated  part  of  America  ;  with  men  who  had 
not  the  religious  element  developed  in  proportion  to  the  in- 
tellectual or  the  aesthetic  element."  *  Of  this  there  can  be 
no  doubt — that,  along  with  a  real  interest  in  theolog}^  and 
religion,  there  was  a  very  decided  taste  and  aptitude  for  lit- 
erary pursuits.  Among  those  who  have  left  the  Unitarian 
pulpit  to  devote  themselves  to  literature  or  politics  are  Mr. 
Sparks,  Mr.  Everett,  Mr.  Bancroft,  Mr.  Emerson,  Mr.  Eip- 
ley,  Dr.  Palfrey,  Mr.  Upham.  If  an  equal  number  of  lead- 
ing minds  had  withdrawn  themselves  from  the  pulpit  in  the 
Methodist  denomination — supposing  that,  in  its  early  days, 
it  had  possessed  so  many  able  and  learned  men — or  from 
any  other  religious  body  not  more  numerous  than  the  Uni- 
tarians were,  the  fact  would  be  considered  very  remarkable. 
I  refer  to  this  matter  merely  as  an  indication  of  the  general 
change  of  atmosphere,  so  to  speak,  in  the  places  where  Uni- 
tarianism  appeared.  The  old  Puritan,  training  with  its  alto- 
gether predominant  devotion  to  religious  and  theological 
writers,  its  austere  jealousy  of  imaginative  literature,  and 
its  rigid  metaphysical  habit,  was  fast  giving  way  to  a 
different  and  more  diversified  type  of  culture.  In  the 
circle   of   students  to  which  Channing  belonged   at  Cam- 

*  Weiss's  Life  of  Parker^  vol.  i.  p.  270. 


264       CHANGING   AS    A    PHILOSOPHER    AND    THEOLOGIAN. 

pear  that  perplexities  of  doctrine  or  metaphysical  problems, 
such  as  we  might  look  for  in  a  Xew  Englander  sprung  from 
the  Puritan  stock,  disturbed  his  thoughts  in  the  least  at 
that  critical  time.  In  truth,  at  all  times  moral  and  spiritual 
relations  were  uppermost  in  his  mind.  He  is  spoken  of  in 
the  title  of  this  article  as  a  "  philosopher  ;  "  but  if  philoso- 
phy is  used  in  its  limited  sense,  to  denote  metaphysics,  or  the 
metaphysics  of  theology,  there  is  little  more  to  be  said 
under  this  rubric  than  is  contained  in  the  noted  chapter  on 
Snakes,  in  the  Natural  History  of  Ireland:  "  There  are 
no  snakes  in  Ireland."  His  strongest  objection  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  is  the  practical  perplexities  which  he 
supposed  it  to  occasion  in  worship  ;  his  objections  to  Calvin- 
ism are  not  so  much  logical,  but  lie  principally  in  what  he 
terms  the  moral  argument  against  it.  He  was  never  fond 
of  Priestley.  In  this  case,  to  be  sure,  the  materialistic  and 
necessarian  theories  of  this  author  were  repugnant  to  his 
convictions.  Much  as  he  honored  Locke  as  a  man,  and  fre- 
quently as  he  refers  to  him  as  an  example  of  anti-Trinitarian 
belief  in  conjunction  with  high  intellectual  endowments, 
Locke's  philosophical  tenets  were  not  congenial  to  him.  He 
was  delivered  from  them  by  his  favorite  writer.  Price,  whose 
dissertations  won  him  over  to  the  intuitive  school,  and  who 
contributed  essentially  to  the  formation  of  his  philosophical 
and  theological  opinions.  This  author  is  really  a  lucid  as 
well  as  an  animated  expositor  of  the  spiritual,  in  opposition 
to  the  empirical,  philosophy.  He  vindicates  the  reality  of 
a  priori  truth  in  the  spirit  of  Cud  worth.  The  genial  tone 
of  Price  and  his  anti-Trinitarian  opinions,  also  recommended 
him  to  Channing's  favor. 

There  is  one  link  of  connection  between  Channing  and 
the  earlier  New  England  theologians.  This  is  through 
Hopkins,  who  was  a  minister  at  Newport  in  the  youth  of 
Channing,  and  had  not  a  little  personal  intercourse  with 
him.  A  notice  of  his  relation  with  Hopkins  brings  us 
naturally  to  one  of  the  cardinal  features  of  Channing's  re- 


OHANNING    AS    A   PHILOSOPHER    AND    THEOLOGIAN.         265 

ligious  system.  He  says  :  "I  was  attached  to  Dr.  Hopkins 
chiefly  by  his  theory  of  disinterestedness.  I  had  studied 
with  great  delight  during  my  college  life  the  philosophy 
of  Hutcheson  and  the  stoical  morality,  and  these  had  pre- 
pared me  for  the  noble,  self-sacrificing  doctrines  of  Dr.  Hop- 
kins." *  The  theory  of  virtue  to  which  Channing  alludes  was 
unfolded  in  its  essential  points  by  Jonathan  Edwards.  Holi- 
ness, goodness,  virtue — moral  excellence,  by  whatever  name 
it  may  be  called — consists  in  Love.  It  is  love  towards  the 
universal  society  of  intelligent  beings,  of  which  God  is  the 
head.  This  love  is  impartial ;  it  goes  out  to  every  being, 
and  gives  to  each  his  due  portion.  God,  the  infinite  One,  is 
entitled  to  love  without  limit.  Every  one  who  is  of  the 
same  order  of  being  as  myself  I  am  to  love  equally  with 
myself.  Love  is  disinterested.  I  am  to  love  myself  not  as 
my  self,  but  only  as  one  member  of  this  universal  society — 
a  member  whose  welfare  is  a  proper  object  of  pursuit,  not 
less  and  not  more  than  is  the  welfare  of  any  other  human 
being,  every  other  one  being  of  equal  worth  or  value.  Self 
is  merged  in  the  sum  total  of  being,  as  a  drop  in  the  ocean. 
It  is  obvious  that  Love,  as  thus  defined,  has  two  directions  : 
one  upward  to  God,  and  the  other  outward  towards  our  fel- 
lG\v-men.  Not  that  piety  and  philanthropy,  in  their  true 
ai  i  perfect  form,  are  really  separable  from  one  another ; 
yt*^  it  is  quite  possible  for  the  feelings  of  adoration,  devotion, 
submission,  and  the  whole  religious  side  of  love  to  engross 
as  it  were  the  mind,  so  that  the  interests  of  man  and  of 
human  life  in  this  mundane  sphere,  except  so  far  as  man  is 
to  be  prevented  from  inflicting  dishonor  on  God  and  ruin 
upon  himself  by  that  means,  should  be  left  in  the  back- 
ground. God  is  to  be  exalted  and  glorified — this  is  the 
main  thought.  Such  was  the  tendency  of  Calvinism ;  of 
Calvinism  in  New  England  as  elsewhere.  All  such  state- 
ments are,  indeed,  subject  to  much  qualification.     Calvinists 

*  Memoir,  vol.  i.,  p.  137. 
12 


264       CHANNING   AS    A    PHILOSOPHER    AND    THEOLOGIAN. 

pear  that  perplexities  of  doctrine  or  metaphysical  problems, 
such  as  we  might  look  for  in  a  Xew  Englander  sprung  from 
the  Puritan  stock,  disturbed  his  thoughts  in  the  least  at 
that  critical  time.  In  truth,  at  all  times  moral  and  spiritual 
relations  were  uppermost  in  his  mind.  He  is  spoken  of  in 
the  title  of  this  article  as  a  "  philosopher  ;  "  but  if  philoso- 
phy is  used  in  its  limited  sense,  to  denote  metaphysics,  or  the 
metaphysics  of  theology,  there  is  little  more  to  be  said 
under  this  rubric  than  is  contained  in  the  noted  chapter  on 
Snakes,  in  the  Natural  History  of  Ireland:  "There  are 
no  snakes  in  Ireland."  His  strongest  objection  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  is  the  practical  perplexities  which  he 
supposed  it  to  occasion  in  worship  ;  his  objections  to  Calvin- 
ism are  not  so  much  logical,  but  lie  principally  in  what  he 
terms  the  moral  argument  against  it.  He  was  never  fond 
of  Priestley.  In  this  case,  to  be  sure,  the  materialistic  and 
necessarian  theories  of  this  author  were  repugnant  to  his 
convictions.  Much  as  he  honored  Locke  as  a  man,  and  fre- 
quently as  he  refers  to  him  as  an  example  of  anti-Trinitarian 
belief  in  conjunction  with  high  intellectual  endowments, 
Locke's  philosophical  tenets  were  not  congenial  to  him.  He 
was  delivered  from  them  by  his  favorite  writer.  Price,  whose 
dissertations  won  him  over  to  the  intuitive  school,  and  who 
contributed  essentially  to  the  formation  of  his  philosophical 
and  theological  opinions.  This  author  is  really  a  lucid  as 
well  as  an  animated  expositor  of  the  spiritual,  in  opposition 
to  the  empirical,  philosophy.  He  vindicates  the  reality  of 
a  priori  truth  in  the  spirit  of  Cudworth.  The  genial  tone 
of  Price  and  his  anti-Trinitarian  opinions,  also  recommended 
him  to  Channing's  favor. 

There  is  one  link  of  connection  between  Channing  and 
the  earlier  New  England  theologians.  This  is  through 
Hopkins,  who  was  a  minister  at  Newport  in  the  youth  of 
Channing,  and  had  not  a  little  personal  intercourse  with 
him.  A  notice  of  his  relation  with  Hopkins  brings  us 
naturally  to  one  of  the  cardinal  features  of  Channing's  re- 


OHANNING    AS    A   PHILOSOPHER    AND    THEOLOGIAN.         265 

ligious  system.  He  says  :  "  I  was  attached  to  Dr.  Hopkins 
chiefly  by  his  theory  of  disinterestedness.  I  had  studied 
with  great  delight  during  my  college  life  the  philosophy 
of  Hutcheson  and  the  stoical  morality,  and  these  had  pre- 
pared me  for  the  noble,  self-sacrificing  doctrines  of  Dr.  Hop- 
kins." *  The  theory  of  virtue  to  which  Channing  alludes  was 
unfolded  in  its  essential  points  by  Jonathan  Edwards.  Holi- 
ness, goodness,  virtue — moral  excellence,  by  whatever  name 
it  may  be  called — consists  in  Love.  It  is  love  towards  the 
universal  society  of  intelligent  beings,  of  which  God  is  the 
head.  This  love  is  impartial ;  it  goes  out  to  every  being, 
and  gives  to  each  his  due  portion.  God,  the  infinite  One,  is 
entitled  to  love  without  limit.  Every  one  who  is  of  the 
same  order  of  being  as  myself  I  am  to  love  equally  with 
myself.  Love  is  disinterested.  I  am  to  love  myself  not  as 
my  self,  but  only  as  one  member  of  this  universal  society — 
a  member  whose  welfare  is  a  proper  object  of  pursuit,  not 
less  and  not  more  than  is  the  welfare  of  any  other  human 
being,  every  other  one  being  of  equal  worth  or  value.  Self 
is  merged  in  the  sum  total  of  being,  as  a  drop  in  the  ocean. 
It  is  obvious  that  Love,  as  thus  defined,  has  two  directions  : 
one  upward  to  God,  and  the  other  outward  towards  our  fel- 
low-men. Not  that  piety  and  philanthropy,  in  their  true 
ai  1  perfect  form,  are  really  separable  from  one  another ; 
yt^  it  is  quite  possible  for  the  feelings  of  adoration,  devotion, 
submission,  and  the  whole  religious  side  of  love  to  engross 
as  it  were  the  mind,  so  that  the  interests  of  man  and  of 
human  life  in  this  mundane  sphere,  except  so  far  as  man  is 
to  be  prevented  from  inflicting  dishonor  on  God  and  ruin 
upon  himself  by  that  means,  should  be  left  in  the  back- 
ground. God  is  to  be  exalted  and  glorified — this  is  the 
main  thought.  Such  was  the  tendency  of  Calvinism ;  of 
Calvinism  in  New  England  as  elsewhere.  All  such  state- 
ments are,  indeed,  subject  to  much  qualification.     Calvinists 


♦  Memoir,  vol.  i.,  p.  137. 
12 


266        CHANNING    AS    A    PHILOSOPHEK    AND   THEOLOGIAN. 

demanded  righteousness  of  conduct.  Channing  was  taught 
by  Hopkins  to  hate  slavery.  This  intrepid  old  man  lifted 
his  voice  against  slavery  and  the  slave-trade  in  Newport, 
when  that  tow^i  was  a  principal  mart  of  this  iniquitous 
traffic.  But,  speaking  generally,  it  was  the  first  and  great 
commandment,  and  the  feelings  directly  involved  in  it,  that 
mainly  absorbed  the  attention.  It  was  not  absolutely  for- 
gotten that  the  second  commandment  is  "like  unto  it." 
The  duties  of  man  to  his  neighbor  were  placed  on  the 
ground  of  religious  obligation.  But  an  active,  warm-hearted, 
many-sided  philanthropy,  which  looks  after  the  temporal  as 
well  as  the  eternal  interests  of  mankind,  and  goes  out  with 
tender  sympathy  to  minister  to  suffering  of  every  kind ; 
which  raises  hospitals,  builds  comfortable  habitations  for 
the  honest  poor,  visits  those  who  are  sick  and  in  prison, 
cherishes  a  conception  of  education  as  comprehensive  as  the 
faculties  of  the  mind — such  a  spirit  of  philanthropy  was 
not  characteristic  of  the  religion  of  JS^ew  England,  and 
Channing  and  Unitarianism  have  done  much  to  promote  it. 
The  disinterested  benevolence  of  Edwards  and  Hopkins  now 
turned  from  lofty  and  sometimes  almost  ecstatic  meditations 
upon  the  sovereignty  and  perfection  of  God,  and  the  itera- 
tion of  the  solemn  demand  to  submit  to  his  authority  and 
to  live  to  His  glory,  to  the  man- ward  side  of  this  principle. 
Edwards  was  transported  by  visions  of  the  sweetness  of 
Christ  and  of  the  sublime  attributes  of  God  ;  Channing,  by 
the  exalted  nature  and  infinite  possibilities  of  man. 

The  dignity  of  human  iiature^  then,  was  a  fundamental 
article  in  Channing's  creed.  In  every  human  being  there  is 
the  germ  of  .an  unbounded  progress.  An  imspeakable  value 
belongs  to  him.  His  nature  is  not  to  be  vilified.  A  wrong 
done  to  him  is  like  violence  offered  to  an  angel. 

This  idea  of  the  dignity  of  man  is  a  great  Christian  truth. 
No  one  can  doubt  that  it  was  a  living  conviction  in  Chan- 
ning's mind.  It  imparted  to  him  that  "  enthusiasm  of  hu- 
manity "  which  became  the  passion  of  his  soul.     But  there  is 


CHANNING    AS    A    PHILOSOPHER    AND    THEOLOGIAN.         267 

another  side  to  the  picture.  "  It  is  dangerous,"  says  Pascal, 
"  to  make  man  see  how  he  is  on  a  level  with  the  brutes, 
without  showing  him  his  greatness.  It  is  dangerous,  again, 
to  make  him  see  his  greatness  without  seeing  his  baseness. 
....  Let  man  estimate  himseH  at  his  real  value.  Let  him 
love  himself,  if  he  has  in  him  a  nature  capable  of  good  ;  but 
let  him  not  love  on  this  account  the  vilenesses  that  belong  to 
it.  Let  him  despise  himself,  because  this  capacity  is  waste ; 
but  let  him  not  on  this  account  despise  this  natural  capacity. 
Let  him  hate  himself ;  let  him  love  himself."  Channing 
avowed  himself  an  opponent  of  w^hat  may  properly  enough 
be  termed  the  Catholic  theology.  He  considered  the  church 
in  all  past  ages  to  have  been  immersed  in  error  on  religious 
themes  of  capital  importance.  This  was  his  judgment  re- 
specting the  churches  of  the  Keformation,  as  well  as  the 
church  of  the  middle  ages.  On  these  topics,  which  stand 
in  the  forefront  of  Christian  theology,  he  frankly  and  boldly, 
but  always  without  bitterness  or  malignity,  declared  that  the 
leading  Reformers  were  the  victims  of  superstition.  The 
movement  of  which  he  was  an  advocate  was  represented  as 
a  new  instauration  of  Christianity.  The  light  which  had 
been  obscured  by  dismal  clouds  had  at  last  broken  forth  in 
its  full  illuminating  power.  He  openly,  though  without  the 
least  arrogance,  claims  the  character  of  an  innovator  and  a 
dissentient.  It  is  not  amiss,  therefore,  to  attempt  to  account 
for  his  rejection  of  the  general  creed.  What  has  the  Cath- 
olic theology  to  say  in  justification  of  itself  ?  It  has  to  say 
simply  that  Channing  had  a  view — that  is,  an  adequate,  pen- 
etrating view — of  only  one  side  of  the  truth.  Kot  but  that 
he  had  a  mournful  perception  of  the  evils  wTOught  by  sin  in 
defacing  God's  image  in  man,  and  in  inflicting  misery  upon 
individuals  and  communities.  Xot  that  he  was  incapable  of 
moral  indignation  in  view  of  atrocities  done  by  man  against 
his  neighbor.  But  the  Catholic  theology,  if  I  may  venture 
to  interpret  its  verdict,  does  not  find  in  him  and  in  his  teach- 
ing, as  a  whole,  that  discernment  of  the  guilt  of  sin,  of  that 


268        OHANNING    AS    A   PHILOSOPHER    AND   THEOLOGIAN. 

particular  quality  of  evil-doing,  which  may  blanch  the  cheek 
and  strike  terror  to  the  heart  of  even  the  prosperous  crim- 
inal; which  moved  the  publican  to  beat  upon  his  breast, 
which  makes  the  strong  man  bow  his  head  in  shame  and 
trembling,  and  which  pierced  as  a  sharp  arrow  the  souls  of 
Augustine,  Luther,  Edwards,  and  the  Apostle  Paul.  I  have 
no  wish  to  bring  an  accusation  against  Channing,  or  to  mag- 
nify a  defect.  I  simply  seek  to  account  for  an  antagonism 
which  he  himself,  and  everybody  else,  admits  to  exist.  The 
Catholic  theology,  once  more,  fails  to  discover  in  Channing 
a  sufficiently  strong  grasp  of  sin  as  a  principle,  revealing  it- 
self in  multiform  expressions  or  phenomena,  entering  into 
numberless  phases  of  manifestation,  exercising  sway  in  man- 
kind, and  holding  fast  the  will  in  a  kind  of  bondage.  The 
diversified  forms  of  selfish  and  unrighteous  action  are  not 
habitually  traced  back  by  him  to  the  Jhns  et  origo  malorum 
— the  mysterious  alienation  of  men  from  the  fellowship  of 
God.  The  moral  malady  is  not  explored  to  its  sources ;  and 
hence  the  tendency  is  to  treat  it  with  palliatives.  He  is  too 
much  inclined  to  rely  on  education  to  do  the  work  of  regen- 
eration. The  forces  requisite  for  the  redemption  of  the  cap- 
tive from  servitude  are  underrated :  as  John  Randolph  said 
of  Watts  and  Beattie,  given  bim  as  an  antidote  to  Hume, 
"  Milk-and-water  for  the  bite  of  a  rattlesnake  !  "  This  ten- 
dency was  not  fully  carried  out  by  Channing.  He  belongs 
to  a  transition.  But  he  shows  plainly  the  drift  of  the 
stream ;  and  he  speaks  of  customary  accusations  of  sin 
brought  against  mankind  as  exaggerated.  If  this  is  not  the 
right  clew  to  the  explanation  of  Channing's  dissent,  we 
know  not  where  to  look  for  it. 

It  may  be  deemed  a  palliation  of  what  the  Catholic  theol- 
ogy must  consider  a  grave  error  in  Channing,  that  current 
expositions  of  the  mystery  of  sin  were  so  justly  open  to 
criticism.  The  Ilopkinsians,  to  be  sure,  made  the  \\dll  the 
seat  of  moral  evil,  but  they  did  not  distinguish  with  any 
steadiness  between  voluntary  and  involuntary  inclinations, 


CHANNING   AS    A   PHILOSOPHER   AND    THEOLOGIAN.         269 

between  choice  and  constitutional  sensibility ;  and,  worse  still, 
they  referred  the  beginning  of  sin  in  each  individual  of  the 
race  to  a  sovereign  decree,  and  did  not  scruple  to  ascribe  it 
to  a  creative  act,  or,  as  they  termed  it,  to  divine  efficiency. 
Such  was  their  usual  phraseology,  that  it  was  hard  for  those 
who  heard  it  to  find  any  firm  ground  of  human  responsi- 
bility for  character  thus  originated.  The  rest  of  the  JS^ew 
England  Calvinists,  on  the  other  hand,  made  sin  a  physical 
inheritance,  a  taint  or  contamination,  which  is  entailed  like 
the  color  of  the  eyes,  or,  rather,  like  a  disease  of  the  lungs. 
In  this  abject  condition  was  orthodox  theology,  in  this 
branch  of  it,  when  the  Unitarian  polemics  opened  their 
guns  upon  it.  And  here  is  the  place  to  say,  that  the  real 
point  of  controversy  between  the  two  parties  was  the  doc- 
trine of  Sin  and  the  correlated  doctrine  of  Conversion^ 
The  field  of  debate  was  Anthropology.  The  New  England 
mind  was  not  speculative ;  and  Jonathan  Edwards  was  al- 
most the  only  one  of  our  divines  who  showed  an  extraordi- 
nary talent  or  relish  for  speculative  divinity.  It  was  the 
practical  side  of  theology,  sin  and  regeneration  in  their  re- 
lation to  the  conditions  of  human  responsibility,  that  inter- 
ested his  successors.  They  wanted  to  make  Calvinism  self- 
consistent,  and  to  parry  objections  that  arose  in  the  minds 
of  their  own  hearers,  or  were  disseminated  by  the  English 
Arminian  writers.  It  is  remarkable,  although  the  Trinity 
and  the  person  of  Christ  were  nominally  the  subject  of  con- 
tention in  the  Unitarian  controversy,  how  little  of  impor- 
tance was  contributed  on  either  side  to  the  elucidation  of 
these  topics.  Even  Norton  and  Stuart,  the  best-equipped 
disputants,  say  little  that  had  not  been  said  before. 

On  the  doctrine  of  Man,  then,  as  I  humbly  conceive,  the 
defect  of  Channing  was  that  he  was  captivated  by  an  ideal. 
He  saw  what  man  might  be,  what  man  ought  to  be ;  but  he 
did  not  thoroughly  see  what  man  really  is.  The  obstacle  to 
be  overcome  in  the  redemption  of  man  he  imperfectly  ap- 
prehended.    In  other  words — not  applying  the  term  in  any 


270       CHANNING    AS    A   PHILOSOPHER   AND   THEOLOGIAN. 

offensive  meaning — lie  was  a  sentimentalist.  He  liad  never 
experienced  in  himself  any  flagi-ant  outbreaking  of  sin  ;  lie 
had  never  wrestled  in  mortal  agony  with  any  sensnal  pro- 
pensity. In  these  particulars  he  resembled  Pelagius  rather 
than  Augustine.  JS^or  did  his  associations  in  life  bring  him 
very  much  in  contact  with  gross  manifestations  of  wickedness. 

It  may  be  added  to  these  remarks  that  the  Catholic  theol- 
ogy does  not  degrade  human  nature,  but  exalts  it,  by  the 
emphasis  which  it  lays  on  guilt.  It  is  only  an  exalted  being 
that  can  make  himself  an  object  of  moral  indignation  to 
the  infinite  Creator.  The  consciousness  of  guilt  forbids 
man  to  think  lightly  of  himself,  to  conceive  of  himself  as 
beneath  the  notice  of  God,  or  to  count  upon  the  indulgence 
to  which  feeble  and  imperfect  orders  of  being  may  reason- 
ably lay  claim.  Sin,  when  we  seek  to  comprehend  its  in- 
ception and  spread  through  mankind,  is  enveloped  in  mys- 
tery ;  but,  as  Coleridge  has  said,  it  is  the  one  mystery  which 
makes  all  things  else  clear. 

The  next  of  the  leading  ideas  of  Channing  was  that  of 
the  Fatherhood  of  God.  Against  the  Calvinistic  assertion 
of  the  sovereignty  of  God,  he  was  never  tired  of  proclaiming 
God's  paternal  character.  In  the  Scriptures,  God  is  spoken 
of  as  a  King,  and  He  is  denominated  a  Father.  That 
there  is  an  administration  of  the  world  by  moral  laws,  and 
that  these  laws  are  enforced  by  penal  sanctions,  is  a  matter 
of  experience  as  well  as  of  revelation.  In  other  words, 
there  is  a  moral  government  over  mankind.  How  are  we 
to  conceive  the  deepest,  the  essential,  relation  of  God  to 
human  beings  whom  he  has  created  in  his  image  ?  Is  it 
best  typified  by  the  relation  of  a  parent  to  his  children  ?  It 
must  not  be  overlooked  that  almost  uniformly  in  the  Xew 
Testament  it  is  believers  in  Christ,  his  disciples,  and  they 
exclusively,  who  are  designated  the  children  of  God.  "  As 
many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become  the 
sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name  "  (John 
1 :  12).     This  is  the  point  of  view  of  all  the  New  Testament 


CHANNING   AS    A   PHILOSOPHER   AND   THEOLOGIAN.        271 

writers.  Sonsliip  is  a  privilege  of  tnie  followers  of  Christ, 
and  is  referred  to  as  an  exalted  and  a  new  relation.  The 
Lord's  prayer  was  given  to  the  disciples.  Thev  constitute  a 
family ;  a  line  of  demarcation  is  drawn  about  them.  A 
sound  exegesis  cannot  fail  to  recognize  this.  At  the  same 
time,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  constitution  of  man 
is  altered,  or  that  new  faculties  are  imparted  to  men,  or  that 
a  relation  totally  new  and  foreign  to  the  nature  of  things  is 
introduced  by  their  recovery  to  God.  Eather  does  man  find 
himself ;  he  comes  back  to  his  true  nature,  and  is  reinstated 
in  his  normal  relation  to  his  Creator.  This  is  implied  in 
the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son,  and  in  the  quotation  which 
Paul  made  at  Athens  from  a  heathen  poet,  who  said  that 
we  are  the  offspring  of  God.  He  is  the  Father  of  our 
spirits.  Channing  meant  and  professed  to  follow  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  but  he  would  have  followed  them  more  strictly  if  he 
had  dwelt  less  on  the  paternal  relation  of  God  to  mankind 
in  their  present  state,  and  had  insisted  more  on  the  fact  that 
a  relation  which  is  practically  subverted  by  their  disloyalty 
can  be  restored  only  by  their  return  to  filial  allegiance.  We 
are  commanded  in  the  'New  Testament  to  behold  the  good- 
ness a7id  the  severity  of  God.  The  severe  side,  the  side  of 
judgment  and  penalty,  which  is  adapted  to  produce  fear, 
had  been  held  up  to  view,  sometimes  disproportionately. 
Both  Edwards  and  Hopkins  had  stated  in  the  boldest  lan- 
guage that  the  righteous  in  heaven  would  derive  satisfaction 
from  contemplating  the  torments  of  the  lost.  This  conclu- 
sion they  supposed  to  follow  by  an  irresistible  logic  from  the 
justice  of  the  appointed  penalty — as  if  a  due  sympathy  with 
the  righteous  administration  of  law  required  that  we  shall 
attend  and  enjoy  public  executions.  In  the  powerful  reac- 
tion against  representations  of  this  character,  against  the 
corresponding  portraiture  of  God,  against  sensuous  pictures 
of  retributive  torment,  and  the  predominant  appeals  to  fear, 
the  Unitarians  tended  towards  the  other  extreme  of  emas- 
culating religion  by  divesting  it  of  those  elements  which 


272       CUANNING   AS   A    PHILOSOPHER   AND    THEOLOGIAN. 

awaken  dread  in  the  guilty — elements  which  are  just  as 
prominently  set  forth  in  the  Bible  as  are  the  paternal  feel- 
ings of  God,  and  can  never  safely  be  left  out  of  the  teach- 
ing of  Christianity.  Channing,  when  he  was  a  boy,  not 
only  never  killed  a  bird,  and  avoided  crushing  an  insect, 
but  he  let  rats  out  of  a  trap  to  save  them  from  being 
drowned.* 

To  bring  men  back  to  God  as  penitent  children  is  recog- 
nized also  by  the  Catholic  theology  as  the  end  of  the  Gospel. 
But  how  ?  Through  the  Son.  The  sonship  of  Christ  is  the 
power  and  the  pattern  of  sonship  in  those  who  have  fallen 
away  from  God.  In  the  church  doctrine,  fatherhood  is  an 
eternal  characteristic  of  God.  It  does  not  begin  to  be  with 
the  human  race,  or  with  redemption.  The  Son  is  sent  to 
bring  back  in  himself  the  fallen  race.  His  sonship  is  eter- 
nal ;  the  mode  of  his  derivation  and  dependence  elevates  him 
above  the  rank  of  a  creature.  But  he  is  sent ;  and  his  com- 
ing is  thus  the  highest  conceivable  evidence  of  the  love  of 
God  to  mankind,  and  of  his  pity  towards  them,  and  of  self- 
sacijiiice  on  the  part  of  him  who  voluntarily  becomes  a  par- 
taker of  human  nature  with  all  its  burdens  and  exposures. 
It  is  in  the  fellow^ship  of  the  Son — according  to  St.  John 
and  St.  Paul — that  we  attain  to  the  realization  of  the  filial 
relation  to  God.  But  what  was  Channing's  conception  of 
Christ  ?  According  to  Channing,  Christ  was  a  pre-existent 
rational  creature,  an  angel  or  spirit  of  some  sort,  who  had 
entered  into  a  human  body.  He  was  not  even  a  man  except 
so  far  as  his  corporeal  part  is  concerned,  but  was  a  creature 
from  some  upper  spliere.  Now  we  can  see  some  plausibility 
in  the  theory  that  Christ  was  merely  a  man ;  was  human 
just  as  Moses  and  Paul  were  human  ;  and  that  this  is  a  com- 
plete account  of  his  person — although  we  believe  this  theory 
to  be  unscriptural  and  untrue.  But  one  must  be  excused 
for  saying — and  this  is  said  without  the  least  polemical  acri- 

*  Memoir^  vol.  i.,  p.  40. 


CHANNING   AS   A   PHILOSOPHER   AND    THEOLOGIAN.         273 

mony — that  the  particular  conception  which  Channing  set 
up  in  the  room  of  the  church  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  is 
one  of  the  crudest  notions  which  the  history  of  speculation 
on  this  subject  has  ever  presented.  The  transitional  charac- 
ter of  Channing's  t}^e  of  theology  is  strikingly  indicated  in 
this  indefinite,  unphilosophical  sort  of  Arianism,  to  which  it 
would  seem  that  he  adhered  to  the  end. 

Here,  again,  we  are  obliged  to  trace  error  in  part  to  the 
particular  conception  of  the  Trinity  which  had  come  to  pre- 
vail in  New  England.  Hopkins  was  the  last  to  hold  to  the 
Nicene  doctrine  of  the  primacy  of  the  Father  and  the  eter- 
nal sonship  of  Christ.  The  whole  philosophy  of  the  Trinity, 
as  that  doctrine  was  conceived  by  its  great  defenders  in  the 
age  of  Athanasius,  when  the  doctrine  was  formulated,  had 
been  set  aside.  It  was  even  derided  ;  and  this  chiefly  for 
the  reason  that  it  was  not  studied.  Professor  Stuart  had  no 
sympathy  with,  or  just  appreciation  of,  the  Nicene  doctrine 
of  the  generation  of  the  Son.  His  conscious  need  of  a  phi- 
losophy on  the  subject  was  shown  in  the  warm,  though 
cautious  and  qualified,  welcome  which  he  gave  to  the  Sabel- 
lianismof  Schleiermacher.  What  he  defended  against  Chan- 
ning, though  with  vigor  and  learning,  was  the  notion  of 
three  distinctions  to  which  personal  pronouns  can  be  ap- 
plied— a  mode  of  defining  the  Trinity  which  the  Nicen9 
Fathers  who  framed  the  orthodox  creed  would  have  re- 
garded with  some  astonishment.  The  eternal  fatherhood  of 
God,  the  precedence  of  the  Father,  is  as  much  a  part  of  the 
orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  is  the  divinity  of  the 
Son. 

What,  according  to  Channing,  is  the  purpose  of  the  mis- 
sion of  Christ  ?  What  work  does  he  perform  ?  Here  he 
agrees  with  the  church  in  the  general  proposition  that  he 
came  to  deliver  men  from  sin  and  its  consequences.*  The 
accepted  doctrine,  and  what  has  always  been  considered  the 

*  Sermon  at  Mr,  Sparks's  Ordination :   Worhij  vol.  iii.,  p.  88. 
12* 


274       CHANNING    AS    A    PHILOSOPHER    AND   THEOLOGIAN. 

doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  is  that  an  expiatory  effect  is  ac- 
complished by  Christ ;  that  although  he  reveals  the  Father's 
love,  and  is  sent  by  the  Father  out  of  compassion  to  the  sin- 
ful race,  there  is  yet  in  the  conscience  of  God  a  demand  to 
which  the  consciences  of  men  respond,  for  something  of  the 
nature  of  compensation  in  the  moral  order  violated  by  sin  ; 
that  this  compensation  being  made,  the  foundation  is  laid 
for  a  forgiveness  which  brings  honor  to  the  divine  character 
on  all  sides,  and  is  consistent  with  a  righteous  moral  admin- 
istration. Thus  a  new  relation  is  established  between  God 
and  men — a  reconciliation.  This  doctrine  of  the  mediation 
of  Christ  is  purposely  stated  here  in  the  most  general  terms, 
in  order  that  none  of  the  special  theories  in  which  it  has 
been  embodied  may  be  confounded  with  the  essential  idea. 
Now  Channing  did  not  absolutely  renounce  the  orthodox 
opinion.  Having  referred  to  the  opposite  view,  he  says : 
"  Many  of  us  are  dissatisfied  with  this  explanation,  and  think 
that  the  Scriptures  ascribe  the  remission  of  sins  to  Christ's 
death,  with  an  emphasis  so  peculiar  that  we  ought  to  con- 
sider this  event  as  having  a  special  influence  in  removing 
punishment,  though  the  Scriptures  may  not  reveal  the  way 
in  which  it  contributes  to  this  end."  But,  in  keeping  with 
his  transitional  position,  he  lays  no  stress  on  this  truth.  On 
the  contrary,  he  is  misparing,  though  never  intentionally  un- 
fair or  extravagant,  in  his  denunciation  of  the  current  ex- 
pressions in  which  it  is  set  forth.  Either  from  a  want  of 
familiarity  with  the  history  of  doctrine,  or  from  not  being 
addicted  to  patient  intellectual  analysis,  he  is  content  with 
giving  expression  to  his  revolted  feeling.  He  does  not  stop 
to  inquire  whether  a  profound  truth  may  not  be  contained  in 
a  statement  which,  if  literally  taken,  is  obnoxious.  He 
sticks  in  the  phraseology.  Nor  does  he  attempt  to  separate 
a  particular  representation  of  some  school  in  theology  from 
the  deep,  underlying  truth  which  theology,  with  varying  de- 
grees of  success,  has  been  endeavoring  to  formulate.  There 
is  a  contrast  between  the  clearness,  and  evident  honesty  of 


CHAINING   AS    A   PHILOSOPHER   AND   THEOLOGIAN.         275 

purpose,  with  which  he  describes  the  position  of  his  adver- 
saries, and  the  inability  profoundly  to  appreciate  that  posi- 
tion. Pl-opositions,  the  terms  of  which  are  capable  of  more 
than  one  interpretation  (as  that  'the  atonement  appeases 
God ' ),  are  taken  in  one  sense — an  admissible  sense,  indeed, 
if  the  words  only  are  considered,  but  yet  not  the  sense  which 
these  words  suggest  to  the  minds  of  those  who  utter  them 
— and  then  a  variety  of  inferences  are  deduced,  repugnant 
to  sound  Christian  feeling  and  to  a  portion  of  the  teaching 
of  Scripture. 

Apart  from  his  criticism  of  adverse  views,  Channing's 
positive  idea  is  that  Christ  does  his  work  of  reclaiming  men 
from  sin  by  teaching  truth,  which  is  recommended  by  his 
spotless  character  and  by  his  death,  and  confirmed  as  having 
authority  by  his  miracles,  especially  his  resurrection  from 
the  dead.  Of  the  teaching  of  Christ,  especially  of  his  ethi- 
cal teaching,  and  of  the  unapproachable  beauty  and  perfec- 
tion of  his  character,  it  is  well  known  that  Channing  has 
written  much  that  is  admirable.  When  we  inquire  specifi- 
cally what  the  capital  points  of  that  doctrine  are  which  Christ 
was  sent  into  the  world  to  announce,  we  find  them  to  be  the 
doctrine  of  God  the  Father,  and  of  the  immortality  of  the 
soul.  This  last  truth  is  brought  home  to  men's  belief  by  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus.  These  two  truths  are  suigled  out  by 
Channing,  in  writing  on  Christian  Evidences,  as  most  im- 
portant points  of  the  Saviour's  teaching.  The  paternal  char- 
acter of  God  is  declared  and  evinced,  and  thereby  supersti- 
tions and  gloomy  fears  growing  out  of  them  are  dispelled ; 
and  the  soul's  destiny  to  survive  death  is  vividly  exhibited, 
and  is  also  proved,  by  the  raising  of  Jesus  from  the  dead. 
The  Christian  revelation  is  reduced  in  its  contents  substan- 
tially to  these  two  articles  of  faith. 

It  might  have  been  predicted,  from  the  analogies  of  expe- 
rience, that  the  Liberal  movement  would  not  stop  with  the 
abandonment  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Incarnation  and  Atone- 
ment, and  with  the  resolution  of  Christianity  into  the  incul- 


276       CHANNING   AS   A   PHILOSOPHER  AND   THEOLOGIAN. 

cation  of  an  elevated  monotheism,  coupled  with  the  truth  of 
immortality,  and  verified  by  miracles.*  A  ferment  like  that 
which  Channing  and  his  associates  excited  could  not  stop 
where  it  began.  In  such  an  atmosphere  changes  occur  fast. 
The  revolution  of  thought,  like  political  revolutions,  could 
not  halt  where  its  authors  might  wish  it  to  stop,  but  must 
move  on  to  more  advanced  stages.  The  first  remarkable 
phenomenon  was  the  development  of  the  Intuitional  Theory, 
if  so  it  may  be  styled.  Schleiermacher,  and  the  French  and 
German  philosophers,  were  read  by  some.  The  thoughts  of 
these  writers  fell  into  a  genial  soil.  Heligious  truth,  which 
the  older  Unitarians,  after  the  manner  of  Locke  and  Paley, 
received  on  the  ground  of  miraculous  proof,  was  now  af- 
firmed to  be  evident  to  the  soul  independently  of  that  spe- 
cies of  evidence,  which  was  pronounced  to  be  of  secondary 
value.  This  view  of  things  involved  a  carrying  of  mental 
freedom  further  than  had  been  anticipated.  It  was  sup- 
posed to  threaten  the  basis  of  supernaturalism.  It  awakened 
alarm.  Professor  I^orton,  learned  in  'New  Testament  criti- 
cism and  in  the  early  patristic  literature,  in  an  address  to  the 
Cambridge  Divinity  School,  uttered  a  warning  against  the 
new  doctrine  of  a  light  within  the  €Oul  as  the  latest  form  of 
infidelity.  Spinoza,  Schleiermacher,  De  Wette,  and  kindred 
spirits,  were  put  under  the  ban,  and  their  followers  excom- 
municated with  bell  and  candle.  His  position  was  that "  no 
proof  of  the  divine  commission  of  Christ  could  be  afforded 
save  through  miraculous  displays  of  God's  power."  "No 
rational  man,"  he  said,  "  can  suppose  that  God  has  miracu- 
lously revealed  facts  which  the  very  constitution  of  our  na- 
ture enables  us  to  perceive."  To  this  address,  Mr.  George 
Ripley  responded  in  a  scholarly  and  trenchant  pamphlet,  in 

*  Among  the  works  which  throw  light  on  the  history  of  Unitarianism  in 
New  England,  in  its  successive  phases,  are  the  Memoirs  of  Br.  Buckmin- 
ster  and  of  J.  8.  Buckminster,  Channing' s  Memoirs  (by  W.  H.  Channing), 
the  Life  of  Br.  Gannett  (by  his  son),  the  hiograpJdes  of  Parker  (by  Weiss 
and  by  Frothingham),  Frothingham's  Transcendentalism^  and  the  Memoir 
of  Margaret  Fuller. 


CHANNING   AS    A    PHILOSOPHER   AND    THEOLOGIAN.         277 

which  he  earnestly  vindicated  Schleiermacher  and  others 
from  the  charge  of  infidelity,  and  proved  by  citations  from 
eminent  theologians  that  the  internal  proof  of  the  Gospel 
had  been  considered  by  tl:^  deepest  thinkers  of  various 
schools  the  principal  evidence  of  its  divine  origin.  It  is 
needless  to  trace  the  progress  of  this  interesting  discussion. 
The  Transcendental  school  at  length  emerged  into  a  distinct, 
flourishing  life.  Inspiration  is  not  limited  to  men  of  the 
Bible ;  the  soul  has  voices  within  it  which  reveal  eternal 
truth  :  let  the  individual  hearken  for  these  utterances  of  the 
universal  spirit,  and  no  longer  lean  on  the  crutches  of  author- 
ity. The  maxim,  "  Every  man  his  own  prophet,"  seemed  to 
some  to  need  no  further  verification  when  Mr.  Emerson,  pro- 
fessing a  carelessness  of  logic,  as  with  the  insight  though 
with  none  of  the  assumption  of  an  oracle,  and  with  the  sub- 
tile, exquisite  charm  of  his  peculiar  genius,  began  to  impro- 
vise in  the  hearing  of  sympathetic  listeners  of  both  sexes. 
A  crisis  was  produced,  however,  by  Parker's  relegating 
miracles  to  the  transient  in  Christianity,  and  by  his  classifi- 
cation of  Christianity  with  the  ethnic  religions  as  a  purely 
natural  product.  Without  renouncing  theism,  he  affirmed 
that  its  doctrine  issues  from  the  progress  of  religion  on  the 
plane  of  nature,  and  is  not  derived  fi-om  supernatural  teach- 
ing. The  truths  which  the  Unitarians  had  made  the  sum 
and  substance  of  the  Gospel  he  asserted  that  we  know  intu- 
itively. What  need,  then,  to  use  Paley's  phrase,  of  "the 
splendid  apparatus  of  miracles,"  to  prove  what  we  already 
know  by  the  light  of  Nature  ?  The  immortality  of  the  soul, 
it  had  been  said,  is  established  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
But  it  is  easier,  Parker  declared,  to  prove  that  we  are  im- 
mortal than  to  prove  the  resurrection.  In  short,  he  pro- 
nounced the  evidence  of  miracles  superfluous  :  tiiere  was  no 
dignuB  vindice  nodus.  If  there  was  nothing  to  prove,  why 
should  there  be  any  proof  ?  The  essentials  of  Christianity 
had  been  reduced  to  a  minimum  /  that  minimum  Parker 
conveyed  over  to  natural  theology. 


278        CHANNING    AS   A   PHILOSOPHER  AND   THEOLOGIAN. 

As  between  the  older  Unitarians  and  the  orthodox,  so 
now  between  the  conservative  Unitarians  and  the  Radicals, 
there  was  a  striking  difference  in  the  type  of  culture.  The 
intuitional  partj  had  given  a  hospitable  and  eager  welcome 
to  the  continental  literature,  not  only  to  the  metaphysicians 
and  theologians,  like  Cousin,  Schleiermacher,  and  De  Wette, 
but  also  to  the  poets  and  critics — to  such  as  Herder  and 
Schiller,  and  especially  to  Goethe.  Carlyle's  critical  essays, 
before  and  after  he  began  to  pour  out  the  powerful  jargon 
which  became  the  characteristic  of  his  style,  were  eagerly 
read,  and  the  new  evangel  of  sincerity,  unconscious  genius, 
and  hero-worship  mingled  its  stream  in  the  current  already 
swollen  by  its  Teutonic  tributaries.  The  memoir  of  that 
woman  of  rare  intellectual  gifts,  Margaret  Fuller,  gives  one 
a  lively  impression  of  the  enthusiasm  awakened  by  the  Eu- 
ropean authors.  To  men  like  Professor  Norton,  a  student 
of  German,' but  who  had  derived  no  very  agreeable  concep- 
tion of  the  German  mind  from  the  earlier  Kationalistic 
writers  whom  he  had  been  called  upon  to  confute — ^to  men 
like  him,  highly  cultivated,  according  to  the  older  standard, 
by  the  perusal  of  Locke  and  the  English  classics,  and  whose 
favorite  poet  was  not  Goethe  but  Mrs.  Hemans,  this  influx 
of  continental  speculative  mysticism  and  poetry  was  odious 
in  the  extreme.  Some  of  the  devotees  of  the  new  culture 
cherished  ardent  visions  of  an  improved  organization  of 
society,  in  which  existing  abuses  and  hindrances  to  intellec- 
tual progress  should  be  swept  away.  The  Brook  Farm  As- 
sociation, with  its  highly  educated  circle  of  members,  was 
one  fruit  of  this  class  of  ideas. 

Mr.  Parker  was  not  the  man  to  hide  his  light  under  a 
bushel.  The  open  avowal  in  the  pulpit  of  opinions  which 
had  commonly  been  considered  infidel,  made  it  necessary  to 
draw  lines.  This,  on  several  accounts,  was  awkward.  There 
was,  to  be  sure,  a  real  difference  between  those  who  admitted 
and  those  who  denied  a  miraculous  element  in  Christianity. 
But  the  promoters  of  the  Unitarian  movement  had  made 


CHANNING    AS   A   PHILOSOPHER   AND   THEOLOGIAN.         279 

large  professions  of  liberality.  They  had  called  for  an  un- 
restricted mental  freedom.  They  had  uttered  a  constant 
protest  against  "  the  system  of  exclusion,"  which  thrusts 
men  out  of  the  pale  of  the  church  for  their  opinions.  They 
had  made  it  a  merit  to  cast  off  the  yoke  of  creeds.  Now  it 
seemed  requisite  to  construct  a  creed,  to  define  Christianity, 
to  separate  between  liberality  and  license,  and  practically  to 
excommunicate  ministers,  not  for  an  alleged  want  of  the 
Christian  spirit,  but  for  their  doctrines.  It  is  always  embar- 
rassing for  a  party  of  freedom  and  of  progress  to  have  to 
change  front,  and  take  the  role  of  conservatives.  It  is  easy 
to  taunt  them  with  inconsistency,  to  contrast  their  former 
professions  with  then*  present  conduct,  to  make  it  seem  at 
least  that  they  are  apostates  from  their  principles,  or  that 
they  have  contended  only  for  that  precise  measure  of  free- 
dom which  was  fitted  to  their  own  need.  How  far  these 
reproaches  were  just  or  unjust,  there  is  no  need  that  we 
should  inquire  here.  No  one  will  doubt  that  the  appear- 
ance of  Parkerism  was  a  highly  unwelcome  phenomenon, 
and  a  rather  unmanageable  one,  to  the  leading  representa- 
tives of  the  liberal  theology.  What  added  to  the  difficulty 
was,  that  there  might  not  be  that  amount  of  agreement 
among  themselves  which  would  appear  requisite  if  a  creed 
were  to  be  framed  that  should  embrace  even  so  much  as  a 
tolerably  precise  definition  of  the  authority  to  be  ascribed 
to  the  Scriptures  and  to  Christ. 

We  are  concerned  now  with  the  view  taken  of  Parker's 
position  by  Channing.  He  naturally  leaned  strongly  to  an 
intuitional  philosophy.  We  have  seen  how  he  was  drawn 
away  from  Locke  by  the  influence  of  Price.  He  had  made 
much  of  the  moral  and  spiritual  faculties  of  man,  and  of 
the  spontaneous  response  which  the  contents  of  the  Gospel 
call  forth  from  human  nature.  There  were  not  wanting, 
then,  affinities  to  draw  him  towards  the  new  school  of  Lib- 
erals. On  the  other  hand,  however,  he  was  deeply  attached 
to  historical  Christianity.     His  biography  contains  a  num- 


280       CHANNING   AS   A   PHILOSOPHER   AND   THEOLOGIAN. 

ber  of  memorable  and  beautiful  letters  in  which  he  expresses 
himself  respecting  Parkerism  temperately  but  frankly.  In 
their  whole  tone  they  manifest,  in  the  most  attractive  way, 
the  loveliness  of  his  Christian  spirit.  He  felt  that  a  rejec- 
tion of  the  miracles  was  a  rejection  of  Christ.  The  miracles, 
he  says,  are  so  interwoven  with  his  history,  that,  if  they  are 
torn  away,  nothing  is  left ;  that  history  is  turned  into  fable ; 
the  historical  Christ  is  gone.  But  why  not  let  him  go  ? 
First,  the  soul  craves  not  only  the  idea,  but  the  existence,  of 
perfection.  Christian  truth  without  Christ  and  his  character 
loses  a  great  portion  of  its  quickening  power.  The  mira- 
cles are  among  the  manifestations  of  Christ's  character ; 
they  are  symbolical  of  his  spiritual  influence — for  these  rea- 
sons they  cannot  be  spared.  The  miracles  are  credible. 
God  could  not  approach  a  darkened,  sensual  world  by  mere 
abstract  teaching.  The  inward  perfection  of  Christ  is  itself 
a  miracle,  which  renders  the  outward  acts  of  superhuman 
power  easy  of  belief.  Channing  recoils  from  Pantheism, 
which  he  sees  to  be  latent  in  the  mind  of  the  new  school  of 
"  true  spiritualists."  Speaking  of  a  sermon  which  he  had 
heard  on  "  the  loneliness  of  Christ,"  he  says  :  "  I  claim  lit- 
tle resemblance  to  my  divine  Friend  and  Saviour,  but  I 
seem  doomed  to  drink  of  this  cup  with  him  to  the  last.  I 
see  and  feel  the  harm  done  by  this  crude  speculation,  while 
I  also  see  much  nobleness  to  bind  me  to  its  advocates.     In 

its  opinions  generally  I  see  nothing  to  give  me  hope 

The  immense  distance  of  us  all  from  Christ "  in  character 
is  a  fact  so  obvious  that  not  to  recognize  it  implies  such 
a  degree  of  self-ignorance,  and  of  ignorance  of  human  his- 
tory, "  that  one  wonders  how  it  can  have  entered  a  soimd 
mind."*  In  these  letters  there  is  no  unseemly  denuncia- 
tion, but  there  is  genuine,  manly  sorrow  at  the  promulgation 
of  opinions  that  are  regarded  as  undermining  historical 
Christianity.     Had  Channing  gone  a  step  further,  and  dis- 

*  Memoir^  vol.  ii.,  p.  448. 


CHANNLNG    AS   A   PHILOSOPHER   AND   THEOLOGIAN.         281 

tinctly  perceived  the  necessity  of  a  present,  abiding  relation 
of  the  soul  to  the  living  Christ,  he  would  naturally  have 
advanced  to  a  view  of  his  person  not  dissonant  in  substance 
from  that  of  the  Catholic  theology,  and  would  have  per- 
ceived at  the  same  time  how  indispensable  to  Christian  piety 
is  the  assumption  of  the  reality  of  the  Gospel  history.  He 
cannot  desert  the  old  anchorage,  but  his  reasons  for  not 
doing  so  are  less  convincing  than  if  he  could  have  pointed 
out  plainly  how  a  shipwreck  is  the  necessary  and  immediate 
consequence.  Christ  was  really,  if  not  theoretically,  more 
to  him  than  a  teacher  and  an  example. 

From  the  consideration  of  the  theology  of  Channing  we 
turn  to  his  ethical  writings.  The  two  great  subjects  with 
regard  to  which  he  produced  a  powerful  and  lasting  impres- 
sion upon  public  opinion  are  War  and  Slavery.  It  is  not 
these  gigantic  evils  in  their  economical  bearings  that  engage 
his  interest.  The  predominant  thought  is  the  wrong  which 
they  involve,  and  the  suffering  which  they  inflict.  His 
strong  sense  of  the  dignity  of  human  nature  excites  in  him 
a  reprobation  of  whatever  degrades  man.  His  discourse  on 
War  is  for  the  most  part  a  well-guarded  statement.  He 
does  not  weaken  the  impression  which  is  made  by  his  de- 
scription of  the  horrors  of  war  by  taking  up  an  extravagant 
position  as  to  its  wrongfulness — as  Mr.  Sumner  afterwards 
did  in  his  oration  on  "  The  True  Grandeur  of  Nations,"  the 
main  points  of  which,  so  far  as  they  are  sound,  are  suggested 
in  Channing's  discussion,  where  they  are  presented  without 
the  pedantry,  magniloquence,  and  tincture  of  egotism  which 
were  the  common  blemishes  of  Mr.  Sumner's  otherwise  im- 
pressive discourses.  Mr.  Sumner  laid  down  the  false  propo- 
sition that  in  the  present  age  there  is  no  peace  that  is  not 
honorable,  and  no  war  that  is  not  dishonorable.  He  made 
no  exceptions  to  the  assertion  of  the  moral  unlawfulness  of 
war.  He  advocated  arbitration  as  a  substitute  for  the  strug- 
gle of  arms,  without  intimating  that  there  are  cases,  like  our 
late  contest  for  the  Union,  where  the  party  that  deems  itself 


282       CHANNING   AS    A    PHILOSOPHER   AND   THEOLOGIAN. 

wrong  or  invaded  will  never,  and  ought  never,  to  refer  tlie 
adjudication  of  the  controversy  to  a  third  power.  Channing 
justifies  defensive  warfare.  His  principle  does  not  go  so 
far  as  to  require  him  "to  condemn  Greece  for  repelling  the 
armies  of  Xerxes,  Washington  for  fighting  the  troops  of 
George  III.,  or  Germany  for  driving  back  the  late  French 
invasion.  It  is  not  true  that  strict  self-defence  is  the  only 
lawful  ground  for  taking  up  arms.  There  are  wars  under- 
taken for  purposes  of  humanity,  and  there  will  continue  to 
be  such  so  long  as  Bulgarian  massacres  are  perpetrated  on 
earth.  Canon  Mozley,  in  an  instructive  sermon  on  War, 
has  shown  how  wars  necessarily  arise  from  the  very  exis- 
tence of  nations  as  coi-porate  unities,  there  being  no  com- 
mon tribunal  for  the  settlement  of  international  disputes, 
and  no  tribunal,  so  far  as  we  can  see  at  present,  being  possi- 
ble, to  which  every  instance  of  grave  national  aggression 
could  be  referred.  Force  is  the  defender  of  justice  and 
right  within  the  limits  of  each  nation,  and  so  likewise  as 
between  peoples.  Christianity,  in  recognizing  nations  as  a 
part  of  the  divine  economy  and  the  obligations  of  civil  obedi- 
ence, has  sanctioned  war  as  an  ultimate  resort  against  flagrant 
and  destructive  injustice,  just  as  it  has  sanctioned  force 
when  wielded  by  the  magistrate  for  the  ends  of  public  order 
within  the  bounds  of  each  civil  community.  Channing 
might  well  have  placed  the  right  of  war  on  a  somewhat 
broader  philosophical  ground.  He  has  not  done  full  justice 
to  the  noble  qualities  of  human  nature,  such  as  courage  and 
self-sacrifice,  which  war  may  call  into  exerAse ;  although 
he  has  words  of  praise  for  "  the  soldier  of  principle,  who 
exposes  his  life  for  a  cause  which  his  conscience  approves, 
and  who  mingles  clemency  and  mercy  with  the  joy  of 
triumph."  These,  however,  are  slight  criticisms  upon  a 
production  which  breathes  in  every  line  the  noblest  spirit  of 
Christian  love,  and,  without  any  admixture  of  false  rhetoric, 
paints  truly  as  well  as  vividly  the  criminality  and  misery 
which  wars  occasion.  ' 


CHANNING   AS    A   PHILOSOPHER   AND    THEOLOGIAN.         283 

The  papers  which  Channing  wrote  on  the  slavery  question 
are  among  the  most  meritorious  of  his  writings.  He  never 
forgets  his  aim,  which  is  to  impress  upon  the  consciences 
of  men  at  the  South  as  well  as  the  Korth  the  injustice  of 
slave-holding,  and  to  extricate  the  national  authority  from 
complicity  with  it.  lie  does  not  allow  himself  to  be  tempted 
into  passionate  declamation.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is 
nothing  tame  or  timid  in  the  condemnation  which  he  ex- 
presses. Channing,  as  is  well  known,  did  not  connect  himself 
with  the  Anti-slavery  Society,  and  objected  to  the  unmeas- 
ured vituperation  in  which  Anti-slavery  leaders  were  prone 
to  indulge.  JS^o  one  should  wish  to  pluck  from  the  brows  of 
Mr.  Garrison  and  his  associates  any  laurels  which  they 
fairly  earned  by  their  long  and  unflinching  warfare  against 
the  slave-power.  It  is  a  fact,  however,  that  they  were  dis- 
unionists  ;  and  that  the  great  political  opposition  to  slavery 
which  set  in  with  full  vigor  at  the  epoch  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise, and  which  went  forward  with  fluctuating,  indeed, 
but  on  the  whole  with  increasing  energy,  untU  it  triumphed 
in  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  and  in  the  emancipation  of 
the  slaves  through  the  victory  over  the  Rebellion, — it  is  a 
fact  that  this  political  opposition  moved  on  to  its  complete 
success  without  the  sympathy  or  aid  of  the  Anti-slavery  agi- 
tators to  whom  we  have  referred.  It  is  another  fact  that 
numbers  of  sound  and  earnest  antagonists  of  slavery,  includ- 
ing numerous  ministers,  broke  off  their  co-operation  with 
Mr.  Garrison  from  unwillingness  to  identify  themselves  with 
other  heterogeneous  reforms,  as  they  were  called,  of  which 
he  made  himselE  the  champion.  Dr.  Channing  understood 
the  value  of  the  American  Union  as  weU  as  the  wrong  of 
slavery.  He  wished  to  preserve  the  one  and  to  destroy  the 
other.  It  is  true  that  he  considered  the  annexation  of 
Texas,  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  desired,  to  be  so 
grave  and  mischievous  a  departure  from  the  design  of  the 
national  Union,  as  to  furnish  a  sufiicient  reason  for  its  disso- 
lution.    But  of  the  importance  of  one  united  government 


284       OHANNING   AS   A   PHILOSOPHER   AND   THEOLOGIAN. 

he  had  the  deepest  conviction.  There  were  times  when  the 
frequent  threats  of  dissolution  at  the  South,  and  the  en- 
croachments of  slavery,  led  many  at  the  Korth  to  speak 
lightly  of  the  American  Union.  All  whose  opinion  is  worth 
anything  can  now  see  that  this  was  a  mistake ;  and  that  the 
interests  of  civiMzation,  and  the  interests  of  philanthropy, 
would  have  suffered  a  terrible  blow  if  the  Union  had  been 
broken  up,  either  as  the  result  of  the  labors  of  Abolitionists 
at  the  North,  or  of  slave-extensionists  at  the  South.  Chan- 
ning  had  to  endure  the  censure  of  zealous  men  for  what 
they  considered  his  excessive  moderation  in  the  use  of  the 
vocabulary  of  invective.  But  this  quality  will  redound  to  his 
lasting  honor.  No  one  doubted  his  courage.  No  one  be- 
lieved that  he  was  restrained  by  the  fear  of  unpopularity. 
It  was  the  spirit  of  truth  and  the  spirit  of  love  united,  which 
held  him  back  from  unwise  and  intemperate  speech,  and  from 
measures  which  might  be  dictated  by  an  honest  zeal,  but 
which  did  not  tend  to  secure  the  end  for  which  they  were 
devised.  His  philanthropic  zeal  was  not  tainted  with  fanati- 
cism. It  was  not  a  fault,  that,  while  uttering  his  protest 
plainly  and  earnestly,  he  shunned  exaggeration.  The  agita- 
tion which  was  kept  up  by  the  disunionist  Anti-slavery 
leaders  had  its  effect  on  the  conscience  of  the  people ;  but 
such  an  effect  was  produced,  to  say  the  least,  in  an  equal 
measure,  and  in  a  way  to  provoke  far  less  of  irritation  and 
disgust,  by  the  arguments  of  Channing. 

On  the  whole,  while  Channing  cannot  be  said  to  have  had 
a  very  deep  comprehension  of  the  evangelical  creed,  or  to 
have  contributed  to  the  advancement  of  scientific  theology, 
those  who  reject  his  theological  opinions  may  be  glad  to  see 
him — to  quote  the  language  of  his  epitaph — "honored 
throughout  Christendom  for  his  eloquence  and  courage  in 
maintaining  and  advancing  the  great  cause  of  truth,  religion, 
and  human  freedom." 


THE    SYSTEM    OF   DR.    N.    W.    TAYLOR.  285 


THE  SYSTEM  OF  DR.  N.  W.  TAYLOR  IN  ITS  CON- 
NECTION WITH  PRIOR  NEW  ENGLAND  THE- 
OLOGY.* 

Philip  Melanchthon,  a  few  days  before  he  died,  wrote  on 
a  loose  sheet  of  paper  a  memorandum  of  reasons  why  death 
should  be  less  unwelcome  to  him.  Among  them  was  the 
prospect  of  escaping  "  from  the  fury  of  theologians."f  The 
outcry  against  him,  that  began  before  Luther's  death,  in- 
creased afterwards ;  and  men  who  copied  in  excess  the  faults 
of  Luther,  without  a  grain  of  his  nobleness,  were  barking  and 
howling  round  the  great  scholar — the  Preceptor  of  Germany, 
the  St.  John  of  the  Reformation — ^for  presuming  to  deviate 

*  [This  Essay  (from  the  New  Englanderiox  1868),  was  occasioned  by  an 
article  on  "Presbyterian  Reunion,"  from  the  pen  of  the  late  Dr.  Charles 
Hodge,  of  Princeton.  One  of  the  objections  made  by  Dr.  Hodge  to  re- 
union was  the  circumstance  that  ministers  in  accord  with  the  theological 
opinions  of  Dr.  Taylor  were  received  into  the  pulpits  of  the  "New-School " 
Presbyterian  Church.  This  objection  "he  fortified  by  alleging  objections 
to  Dr.  Taylor's  theology.  In  reprinting  this  essay,  it  has  been  abridged 
by  leaving  out  some  passages  of  no  permanent  interest.  It  was  impracti- 
cable to  omit  all  polemical  references  with  respect  to  the  interpretation 
of  Dr.  Taylor's  system,  as  these,  in  a  few  cases,  are  so  interwoven  with 
the  text  of  the  article  that  they  could  not  well  be  eliminated.  The 
Outlines  of  Theology,  to  which  reference'is  made,  is  the  work  of  Dr.  A.  A. 
Hodge,  based  partly  on  the  lectures  of  the  senior  Dr  Hodge.  This  able 
work  has  since  been  rewritten  and  much  expanded.  (R.  Carter  and 
Brothers,  1879.)] 

f  The  whole  memorandum  is  pathetic  : — "  Discedes  a  peccatis  ;  libera- 
beris  ab  seruranis  efc  a  rabie  theologorum ;  venies  in  lucem  ;  intueberis 
Filium  Dei ;  disces  ilia  mira  arcana,  quas  in  hac  vita  intelligere  non  potu- 
isti— cur  sic  simus  conditi,  qualis  sit  copulatio  duarum  naturarum  in 
Christo."  ^ 


286  THE  SYSTEM  OF  DE.  TAYLOE  IN  CONNECTION 

in  some  particulars  from  Luther's  doctrine.  He  could  not 
help  agreeing  with  Calvin  on  the  Lord's  Supper ;  he  could 
not  admit  the  slavery  of  the  will  as  Luther  had  proclaimed 
it ;  he  would  go,  perhaps,  too  far  in  retaining  old  forms  of 
worship  for  the  sake  of  peace.  For  these  conscientious  opin- 
ions, the  author  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  pursued 
with  unrelenting  hostility ;  so  that  a  half  century  after  he 
died,  the  leading  professor  of  theology  at  Wittenberg  was 
so  enraged  at  hearing  him  referred  to  by  a  student  as  an 
authority  for  some  doctrinal  statement,  that,  before  the  eyes 
of  all,  he  tore  his  portrait  from  the  wall  and  trampled  on  it. 

There  is  such  a  thing,  then,  as  rabies  iheologoruw,.  Of 
course  we  do  not  mean  to  imply  that  Dr.  Taylor  was  ever  in 
the  same  degree  the  object  of  it.  Yet,  it  was  well  that  even 
he  was  made  of  sterner  stuff  than  poor  Melanchthon.  He 
never  complained  of  a  manly,  courteous  opposition  to  his 
opinions.  He  who  brings  forward  new  ideas  has  no  right  to 
claim  exemption  from  unfavorable  criticism.  But  he  did 
feel  that  there  was  far  more  effort  to  make  him  out  heretical, 
to  rob  him  of  his  good  name  among  orthodox  Christians,  and 
to  stir  up  prejudice  against  him,  than  to  judge  fairly,  or  even 
to  hear  candidly,  his  teaching.  It  did  not  diminish  his  sense 
of  wrong  that  in  some  cases  the  stabs  upon  his  reputation 
were  inflicted  with  a  bland  and  unctuous  manner,  with  pro- 
fessions of  personal  regard,  and  under  the  guise  of  a  holy 
zeal  for  the  truth.  Dr.  Taylor  was  himself  an  honest,  mag- 
nanimous, open-hearted  man  ;  and  he  knew  well  who,  among 
his  opponents,  were  moved  by  a  conscientious  dissent  from 
his  opinions,  and  who  of  them  were  instigated  by  self-inter- 
est or  by  resentment  for  imagined  slights. 

Dr.  Taylor  w^as  a  metaphysician ;  he  was  a  philosopher, 
who  has  had  no  equal  in  this  department,  on  our  side  of  the 
ocean,  since  President  Edwards.  It  was  in  some  respects  a 
misfortune  that  his  philosophical  views  and  reasonings  were 
brought  forward  in  the  form  of  theological  discussions.  In 
this  country,  not  only  every  minister,  but  most  laymen,  sup- 


WITH  PRIOR  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY.        287 

pose  themselves  to  be  adepts  in  tlie  science  of  theology. 
They  expect  tliat  everything  shall  be  made  perfectly  easy  of 
comprehension  to  everybody.  Hence,  so  clear,  common- 
sense  a  thinker  as  Dr.  Taylor,  who-  hated  all  mysticism,  was 
constantly  complained  of  as  too  "  metaphysical,"  as  obscure 
and  unintelligible.  Itinerant  preachers,  who  had  no  train- 
ing in  mental  science,  and  little  capacity  for  receiving  one, 
felt  that  there  must  be  something  dreadful  under  that  cloud 
which  their  eyes  could  not  penetrate.  They  felt  sure  that  it 
was  not  "  the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel."  So  President  Ed- 
wards, in  his  day,  frequently  alludes  to  the  reproach  that  was 
cast  upon  him  because  he  reasoned  metaphysically.  More- 
over, bringing  forward  his  philosophical  opinions  exclusively 
in  their  bearing  on  theological  questions  of  present  interest, 
Dr.  Taylor  would  be  liable  to  excite  the  opposition  of  exist- 
ing theological  parties.  Calm  discussion  would  be  inter- 
rupted by  ecclesiastical  interference.  Had  he  brought  the 
results  of  his  thinking  into  the  forum  of  philosophy,  where 
they  might  be  examined,  as  are  the  tenets  of  Leibnitz,  or 
Locke,  or  Dugald  Stewart,  who  supposes  that  all  of  those 
who  actually  took  up  arms  against  him  would  have  deemed 
themselves  qualified  by  nature  or  education  for  this  work  of 
assault  ? 

In  our  judgment,  it  is  a  grand  merit  of  our  New  England 
theologians,  that  while  holding  the  past  in  due  reverence, 
they  have  not  bowed  down  before  it,  but  have  expected  prog- 
ress. They  have  seen  that  the  denial  of  the  hope  of  progress 
ill  theology — that  is,  in  the  understanding  and  expression  of 
the  truths  of  the  Bible — would  have  shut  out  the  Protestant 
Reformation,  as  well  as  every  other  access  of  light  since 
theology  began  to  be  a  science.  Smalley,  while  engaged  in 
combating  theories  of  Emmons  which  he  earnestly  rejected, 
is  careful  to  add  : 

"  It  has  doubtless  been  perceived  by  every  attentive  reader,  that  the 
sentiments  remarked  upon,  are  not  objected  against  merely,  if  at  all,  be- 


288  THE    SYSTEM    OF   DE.    TAYLOR   IN   CONNECTION 

cause  of  their  being  innovations  ;  there  may  be  danger  no  doubt,  of  hold- 
ing over  tenaciously  the  traditions  of  the  elders,  as  well  as  of  departing 
too  hastily  from  the  long  received  opinions  of  our  ancestors.  There  have 
been  many  innovations  in  Christian  theology,  which  were  doubtless  real 
improvements.  Calvin  himself  was  a  great  innovator  in  his  day  ;  and  it 
cannot  reasonably  be  supposed,  that  either  he,  or  any  of  the  other  first 
reformers,  just  emerging  from  the  darkness  of  popery,  had  all  the  light 
that  was  ever  to  come  into  the  world."  * 

To  our  mind  there  is  something  noble  in  this  willing, 
hopeful  spirit  of  progress  and  emancipation  from  slavish 
deference  to  human  authority.  They  mark  a  truly  scienti- 
fic, as  well  as  a  truly  Christian  temper.  There  is  no  con- 
tempt for  the  past ;  there  is  no  rash  and  flighty  desertion  of 
received  doctrine  ;  but  there  is  a  readiness  to  learn,  to  modi- 
fy traditional  tenets  at  the  coming  of  new  light,  and  a  dis- 
position to  confront  the  errors  of  good  men  by  dispassionate 
argument  instead  of  church  anathemas.  How  much  better 
is  'New  England  to-day,  and  the  Christianity  of  the  country 
too,  for  the  line  of  theologians  from  Edwards  to  Taylor — 
not  to  speak  of  the  living — ^who,  whatever  may  have  been 
their  eccentricities  or  mistakes,  have  dared  to  think  for 
themselves  and  have  endeavored  to  present  the  truths  of  the 
Gospel  in  more  reasonable  as  well  as  defensible  forms  of 
statement.  This  freedom  is  an  invaluable  possession.  Where- 
ever  it  may  be  lightly  esteemed,  let  it  be  still  cherished  in 
'New  England ! 

The  present  seems  a  favorable  opportunity  for  setting 
forth  the  theological  system  of  Dr.  Taylor,  in  itself  and  in 
its  historical  relations.  This  we  undertake  more  as  an  ex- 
positor than  as  a  critic,  and  shall  therefore  in  this  place  ab- 
stain, generally  speaking,  from  either  vindicating  or  opposing 
his  distinctive  tenets. 

Everybody  who  is  much  acquainted  with  New  England 
theology  knows  that  the  elder  Edwards  set  out  to  clear  the 

*  Smalley,  Works^  ii.,  431 


WITH   PKIOE   NEW    ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  289 

CaMnistic  system  of  difficulties  and  objections  that  were  felt 
both  by  its  advocates  and  opponents ;  an  attempt  which  was 
continued  by  subsequent  theologians.  "The  Calvinists," 
writes  the  younger  Edwards,  describing  the  state  of  things 
when  his  father  commenced  his  work,  "  themselves  began  to 
be  ashamed  of  their  own  cause,  and  to  give  it  up,  so  far  at 
least  as  relates  to  liberty  and  necessity.  This  was  true,  es- 
pecially of  Drs.  Watts  and  Doddridge,  who  in  their  day 
were  accounted  leaders  of  the  Calvinists."  *  The  full  justice 
of  this  remark  will  be  evident  to  any  one  who  will  examine 
the  theological  writings  of  these  two  eminent  men.  We 
know  not  where  to  look  for  more  striking  specimens  of 
weak  and  inconsequent  reasoning  than  they  present ;  and 
this  impression  is  heightened  in  the  case  of  Doddi-idge,  by 
the  quasi  mathematical  form  in  which  his  lectures  are  cast. 
The  sum  of  the  charge  brought  against  the  Calvinists  was 
that  "  the  sense  in  which  they  interpreted  the  sacred  writ- 
ings was  inconsistent  with  human  liberty,  moral  agency,  ac- 
countableness,  praise,  and  blame."  "  How  absurd,  it  was 
urged,  that  a  man  totally  dead  should  be  called  upon  to  arise 
and  perform  the  duties  of  the  living  and  sound — ^that  we 
should  need  a  divine  influence  to  give  us  a  new  heart,  and 
yet  be  commanded  to  make  a  new  heart  and  a  right  spirit — 
that  a  man  has  no  power  to  come  to  Christ,  and  yet  be  com- 
manded to  come  to  him  on  pain  of  damnation  !  "  f 

The  fundamental  points  in  the  indictment  preferred  by 
the  Arminian  writers,  Edwards  took  up  in  his  two  treatises, 
that  on  the  Will  and  that  on  Original  Sin.  It  had  been  the 
Augustinian,  mediaeval,  and  old  Protestant  doctrine,  that 
the  posterity  of  Adam  are  answerable  for  Adam's  sin,  and 
therefore  both  sinful  and  condemned  at  birth,  because  they 
really  participated  in  it.  They  are  condemned  and  punished 
for  their  own  deed  in  Adam.  After  the  notion  of  a  covenant 
with  Adam — the  so-called  Federal  theology,  which  is  now 

♦  Wi/i'ks,  L,  482.  t  Ibid.,  p.  483. 


290  THE    SYSTEM   OF   DE.    TAYLOK   IN   CONNECTION 

maintained  at  Princeton — was  superimposed,  in  the  course 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  on  the  realistic  conception,  still 
theologians,  when  they  were  pressed  by  objections,  fell  back 
on  the  old  idea  of  a  true  and  real  participation  on  the  part 
of  mankind  in  their  progenitor's  act.  But  the  inconsistency 
of  this  doctrine  with  other  accepted  beliefs — ^for  example, 
with  Creationism,  or  the  doctrine  that  each  soul  is  created 
by  itself,  in  opposition  to  the  Traducian  theory,  and  more 
than  all  with  the  Lockian  philosophy,  in  which  philosophical 
realism  found  no  countenance,  broke  down  this  prop.  Par- 
ticipation in  Adam's  sin  did  not  cohere  with  nominalism. 
The  opponents  of  Calvinism  now  demanded  with  one  voice 
some  explanation  of  the  imputation  of  a  sin  to  the  descen- 
dants of  Adam,  which  it  was  confessed  they  had  no  agency  in 
committing.  They  inquired  how  the  infliction  of  an  infinite 
penalty  upon  them,  for  an  act  that  was  done  by  an  individual 
long  before  they  were  created,  is  consistent  with  those  intui- 
tive principles  of  justice  which  are  written  on  the  heart  and 
sanctioned,  directly  or  indirectly,  everywhere  in  the  Bible. 

In  the  latter  part  of  his  treatise  on  original  sin,  President 
Edwards  endeavors  to  meet  "that  great  objection,"  as  he 
styles  it,  "  against  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  pos- 
terity, that  such  imputation  is  unjust  and  unreasonable,  in- 
asmuch as  Adam  and  his  posterity  are  not  one  and  the 
same."  *  His  whole  tone  implies  that  he  considers  this  a 
grave  and  formidable  objection,  and  his  great  powers  are 
tasked  to  the  utmost  in  meeting  it.  He  meets  it  by  denying 
the  fact  which  it  assumes,  that  Adam  and  his  posterity  are 
distinct  agents.  The  guilt  of  a  man  at  his  birth  is  declared 
to  be  "  the  guilt  of  the  sin  by  which  the  species  first  re- 
belled against  God."t  "  The  sin  of  apostasy  is  not  theirs, 
merely  because  God  imjmtes  it  to  them,  but  it  is  truly  and 
properly  theirs,  and  on  that  ground  God  imputes  it  to 

*  Works  (Dwight's  ed.),  vol.  ii.,  p.  343. 
t  Ibid.,  p.  543. 


"V\TTH    PRIOR   NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  291 

them."  *  His  curious  speculations  upon  the  nature  of  iden- 
tity are  to  demonstrate  that  the  sin  of  the  posterity  of  Adam 
is  one  and  the  same — identically,  numerically  the  same— 
with  his.  The  first  rising  of  a  sinful  inclination  in  any  and 
every  individual  since  Adam  is  that  consent  to  the  first  sin 
which  they  really  gave  in  him,  and  which,  in  the  individuali- 
zation of  the  species,  appears  in  the  soul  of  every  person  at 
birth.  In  short,  he  answers  the  objection  that  we  did  not 
commit  the  first  sin,  by  affirming  that  we  did. 

The  second  great  objection  of  the  Arminians,  that  accord- 
ing to  Calvinism  men  are  required  to  do  what  they  are  said 
to  have  no  power  to  do — that  the  freedom  of  the  will  is  de- 
nied, and  fatalism  substituted  for  it — Edwards  particularly 
considers  in  the  treatise  on  the  Will.  He  endeavors  to  con- 
fute them  on  this  point  by  his  doctrine  of  natural  ability 
coupled  with  moral  inability.  The  germs  of  this  treatise 
are  in  Locke's  chapter  on  "  Power."  f  Locke  there  main- 
tains that  "  freedom  consists  in  the  dependence  of  the  exist- 
ence, or  non-existence,  of  any  action  upon  our  volition  of 
it ; "  J  that  liberty  relates  to  events  consecutive  to  volition. 
Given  the  volition,  will  the  thing  chosen  follow  in  accord- 
ance with  it  ?  If  so,  we  are  to  that  extent  free.  This  is 
the  proper,  and  the  only  proper,  use  of  the  terms  freedom 
and  liberty  in  their  application  to  personal  agents.  Hence, 
Locke  declares  that  the  "  question  whether  a  man  be  at  lib- 
erty to  will  which  of  the  two  he  pleases,"  is  absurd ;  for 
this,  he  adds,  is  to  ask  "  whether  a  man  can  will  what  he 
wills,  or  be  pleased  with  what  he  is  pleased  with.  A  ques- 
tion which,  I  think,  needs  no  answer ;  and  they  who  can 
make  a  question  of  it,  must  suppose  one  will  to  determine 
the  acts  of  another,  and  another  to  determine  that,  and  so 
on  in  infinitum.'''^  §•  Here  is  Edwards's  refutation  of  the 
Arminian  objections,  in  a  nutshell.     He  defines  one's  lib- 


*  Ibid.,  p.  559.  t  Ibid.,  chap.  xxi. 

X  "  Univ.  Ed.,"  p.  159.  §  Ibid.,  p.  158. 


292  THE   SYSTEM   OF   DR.    TAYLOR   IN   CONNECTION 

erty  to  be  freedom  "  from  hindrance  or  impediment  in  the 
way  of  doing  or  conducting  in  any  respect  as  he  wills."  * 
Necessity,  constraint,  coercion,  and  all  similar  terms  are  in- 
applicable to  the  will,  for  the  reason  that  they  all  presup- 
pose an  opposition  of  the  will,  which  in  the  case  of  a  choice 
is  by  the  supposition  excluded.f  That  only  is  necessary 
which  choice  cannot  prevent,  ij: 

Casting  out  these  terms,  he  then,  by  a  remorseless  appli- 
cation of  the  maxim — every  event  must  have  a  cause — to 
the  specifiGation  of  choice — to  the  choice  of  one  thing  rather 
than  another — established  his  doctrine  of  determinism,  and 
drove  the  Arminians  to  the  wall.  There  was  full  liberty, 
there  was  no  necessity,  and  yet  there  was  an  absolute  cer- 
tainty given  by  the  antecedents ;  and  on  this  foreordained 
certainty,  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  predestination  might 
have  a  sure  foundation. 

What  did  Edwards  mean,  then,  by  his  "  natural  ability  "  ? 
He  meant  that  nothing  but  a  right  choice  or  inclination  is 
needed  by  a  wicked  man  in  order  to  repent  and  turn  from 
his  ways.  "  There  are  faculties  of  mind,  and  a  capacity  of 
nature,  and  everything  else  sufficient ;  nothing  is  wanting 
but  a  will."  §  But  coexisting  with  this  natural  ability,  is  a 
moral  inability,  by  which  is  meant  a  fixed  and  habitual  in- 
clination such  as  renders  a  perseverance  in  evil — a  persever- 
ance of  the  will  in  its  evil  choice — perfectly  certain. 

It  is,  therefore,  according  to  Edwards,  an  impropriety  of 
speech  to  say  that  a  sinner  cannot  repent  and  be  holy.  We 
say  that  a  man  cannot  accomplish  an  event,  when  the  event 
will  not  take  place  in  consequence  of,  or  on  the  supposition 
of,  his  choice.  But  here  the  event  is  itself  a  choice ;  it  is  a 
case  where  doing  is  choosing.  ||     For  a  like  reason,  Edwards 

*  Works,  ii.,  38.  t  Ibid.,  ii.,  26  et  passim. 

t  Ibid.,  li.,  84.  §  Ibid.,  ii.,  38. 

I  It  is  nothing  new  for  Necessitarians  to  deny  the  propriety  of  apply- 
ing the  terms  "necessity,"  *'  coaction,"  "inability,"  and  the  like,  to  acta 
of  the  will.     Their  argument  on  this  point  is  concisely  put  by  Thomas 


WITH  PRIOR  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY.        293 

continually  treats  the  question  whether  a  man  can  choose 
otherwise  than  he  does,  as  absurd.  For  what  does  it  sig- 
nify? It  signifies,  when  reduced  to  a  proposition,  either 
that  if  he  chooses  in  a  particular  way,  he  chooses  in  that 
way — an  identical  proposition,  or  that  he  will  choose  in  a 
particular  way,  if  he  chooses  to  choose  in  that  way — which 
leads  to  an  infinite  series.  Thus  he  rules  out  the  question 
of  the  power  of  contrary  choice,  in  the  ordinary  understand- 
ing of  the  phrase,  by  his  definitions.  To  ask  if  a  man  can 
repent,  or  if  he  can  repent  if  he  choose,  or  if  he  can  repent 
if  he  will,  is  either  mere  tautology,  or  involves  the  blunder 
of  supposing  an  infinite  series  of  choices.  He  silences  the 
objector  by  depriving  him  of  the  power  to  put  his  question, 
or  by  pronouncing  that  question  an  absurdity.  Man  is  re- 
sponsible because  he  is  naturally  able ;  he  is  helpless  because 
he  is  morally  unable.* 

Aquinas.  "  lllud  quod  movetur  ab  altero,  dicitur  cogi,  si  moveaimr  con- 
tra inclinationem  propriam,  eed  si  moveatur  ab  alio,  quod  sibi  dat  pro- 
priam  inclinationem,  non  dicitur  cogi,"  "  Sic  igitur  Deus  naovendo  vo- 
luntatem  non  cogit  ipsam,  quia  dat  ei  ejus  propriam  inclinationem." 
"Sic  moveri  ex  se  non  repugnat  ei,  quod  movetur  ab  alio."  P.  i.  Qu. 
105,  Art.  4. 

There  is  great  similarity  between  the  definitions  and  arguments  of  Ed- 
wards and  those  of  Hobbes  and  Collins.  He  says  that  he  had  not  read 
Hobbes,  and  although  Dugald  Stewart  implies  that  he  had  read  Collias, 
this  is  not  at  all  probable.  Sir  William  Hamilton  once  made  a  remark 
to  us,  which  implied  that  he  considered  Edwards  a  borrower  from  Col- 
lins. On  repeating  Hamilton's  observation  to  Dr.  Taylor,  he  said  that 
probably  Edwards  had  never  seen  a  copy  of  Collins. 

*  Sometimes  Edwards  appears  to  leave  the  beaten  track,  and  really  to 
take  up  the  question  of  the  power  of  contrary  choice.  One  instance  is 
in  Part  iii,  §  iv.  (ii.  160),  where  he  says  that  "the  inclination,"  in 
the  case  of  the  original  determination  or  act  of  the  will,  "is  unable  to 
change  itself  ;  and  that  for  this  plain  reason,  that  it  is  unable  to  incline  to 
change  itself."  But  the  context  shows  that  the  unable  is  only  a  moral 
inability,  or  certainty  ;  and  the  reason  alleged  is  still  the  incompatibility 
of  oppodte  choices  (or  inclinations)  at  the  same  time.  "  Present  choice 
cannot  at  present  choose  to  be  otherwise:  iox  thsA,  wonldi  he  at  present 
to  choose  something  diverse  from  what  is  at  present  chosen."  The  italics 
belong  to  Edwards. 


294  THE    SYSTEM   OF    DR.    TAYLOR   IN   CONNECTION 

Unquestionablj  the  statements  of  President  Edwards  on 
this  subject  are  verbally  at  variance  with  the  Calvinistic 
symbols  and  standard  writers.  The  old  form  of  doctrine 
was  that  men  since  the  fall  are  free  to  sin,  but  have  no  other 
freedom.  But  the  frequent  assertion  of  Edwards  is  that 
men  now  have  all  the  liberty  that  ever  existed  or  that  could 
ever  possibly  enter  into  the  heart  of  any  man  to  conceive.* 
This,  however,  is  a  verbal  incongruity,  due  to  his  peculiar 
use  of  terms.  Yet  his  theory  of  the  will  differs  from  that 
of  the  old  Calvinists,  if  we  except  the  high  supralapsarian 
view,  in  that  they,  like  Augustine,  explicitly  gave  to  Adam 
in  his  act  of  apostasy  the  power  of  contrary  choice.f  And 
that  "  mutability  "  of  will  that  was  ascribed  to  him  prior  to 
transgression  can  find  no  place  in  President  Edwards's  notion 
of  liberty.:]: 

The  solution  which  Edwards  offered  of  the  problem  of 

The  nearest  approach  to  a  perfectly  distinct  and  unequivocal  assertion 
of  properly  necessitarian  doctrine,  which  we  remember  in  Edwards,  is  in 
the  remark  that  the  difference  between  natural  and  moral  necessity 
"  does  not  lie  so  much  in  the  nature  of  the  connection,  as  in  the  two  terms 
connected ;  "  the  cause  and  effect  in  the  case  of  moral  necessity  being  of 
a  moral  kind.     P.  i.,  §  4. 

*  Letter  to  a  Minister  of  the  Church  of  Scotland^  vol.  ii. 

f  Comp.  West.  Confession,  chap,  ix.,  iii.  Man  "hath  wholly  lost  all 
ability  of  will  to  any  spiritual  good,"  etc. 

X  It  is  remarkable  that  the  Jansenists,  in  striving  to  make  a  distinction 
between  their  doctrine  and  that  of  Calvin,  use  phraseology  very  similar 
to  that  of  Edwards.  Men  can  resist  grace  if  they  will.  Calvin  is  quite 
wrong,  says  Pascal,  in  the  seventeenth  of  the  Provincial  Letters,  in  hold- 
ing that  the  sinner  cannot  resist  grace — even  "  la  grace  efficace  et  victo- 
rieuse."  "  Ce  n'est  pas  quMl  ne  puisse  toujours  s'en  eloigner,  et  qu'il  ne 
s'en  eloigndt  effectivement,  e'il  le  voulait."  But  what  does  he  mean  by 
can — by  power.  It  is  the  Augustinian  potestas  si  wilt,  as  Mozley  has 
pointed  out  in  his  Augustinian  Doctrine  of  Predestination,  p.  427.  Cal- 
vin would  have  admitted  all  that  Pascal  says,  for  he  did  not  hold,  as  was 
represented  by  the  Jansenists,  that  the  wiU  is  moved  like  an  inanimate 
thing.  See  (e.  g.)  hist,  ii.,  iii.,  14.  The  Dominicans  endeavored  to  dis- 
tinguish their  doctrine  from  that  of  the  Jansenists,  as  the  latter  professed 
to  reject  the  doctriae  of  Calvin.  But  the  difference  in  both  cases  was 
merely  verbal. 


WITH   PEIOE   NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  295 

original  sin  failed  to  satisfy  his  successors.  Hopkins,  in  cer- 
tain passages,  seems  to  adopt  the  realistic  propositions  of  his 
teacher.  Of  Adam  it  is  said  that  "  being  bj  divine  con- 
stitution the  natural  head  and  father  of  the  whole  race,  they 
were  all  included  and  created  in  him  as  one  whole  which 
could  not  be  separated ;  and,  therefore,  he  is  treated  as  the 
whole  in  this  transaction."*  But  looking  at  all  that  he 
says  on  the  subject,  we  find  his  doctrine  to  be  that  men  are 
sinners  from  birth  through  a  divine  constitution  establish- 
ing an  infallible  connection  between  Adam's  sin  and  their 
sin.  If  he  sins,  it  is  certain  that  they  will  begin  their  ex- 
istence as  sinners.  But  all  sin  consists  in  exercise  or  act. 
And  "  the  children  of  Adam  are  not  guilty  of  his  sin,  are 
not  punished,  and  do  not  suffer  for  that,  any  further  than 
they  implicitly  or  expressly  approve  of  his  transgression  by 
sinning  as  he  did ;  their  total  moral  corruption  and  sinful- 
ness is  as  much  their  own  sin,  as  it  could  be  if  it  were  not 
in  consequence  of  the  sin  of  the  first  father  of  the  human 
race,  or  if  Adam  had  not  first  sinned."  f  It  is  explicitly 
held  that  men  do  not  become  sinners  as  a  penalty  of  the 
law  for  Adam's  sin.  Their  sin  is  at  once  a  consequence  or 
effect  of  Adam's  sin  by  the  divine  constitution,  and  their 
own  free  act.  Yet  they  begin  to  sin  at  the  beginning  of 
their  existence.  "  As  soon  as  children  are  capable  of  the 
least  motion  and  exercise  of  the  heart  which  is  contrary  to 
the  law  of  God,  such  motions  and  exercises  are  sin  in  them, 
though  they  are  ignorant  of  it."  "  Persons  may  be  moral 
agents,  and  sin  without  knowing  what  the  law  of  God  is,  of 
what  nature  their  exercises  are,  and  while  they  have  no  con- 
sciousness that  they  are  wrong." 

Hopkins  brought  in  the  doctrine  of  divine  efficiency  in  the 
production  of  sin.  He  considered  this  a  legitimate  deduc- 
tion from  the  teachings  of  Edwards.  It  had  been  held  that 
sinful  choices,  not  less  than  holy,  result  with  infallible  cer- 

*  W(/rk%  (Boston  ed.,  1853),  i.,  199.  \  Ibid.,  i,  235. 


296      THE  SYSTEM  OF  DR.  TAYLOR  m   CONNECTION 

taintj  from  causes  which  God  had  set  in  operation.  He  is, 
then,  the  first  cause  to  whose  power  the  effect  must  be  at- 
tributed. The  efficiency  that  issues  in  the  origination  of  a 
sinful  choice  emanates  from  him.^  His  agency  is  universal. 
In  Emmons,  Hopkinsianism  is  seen  in  full  flower.  All 
men  become  sinners  by  Adam.  He  did  not  make  them  sin- 
ners by  causing  them  to  commit  his  first  offence.  "  We  could 
no  more  eat  of  the  forbidden  fruit  before  we  were  born,  than 
Adam  could  have  eaten  of  it  before  he  was  created."  Nor 
did  he  make  men  sinners  by  transferring  to  them  the  guilt 
of  his  first  transgression.  "  The  guilt  of  any  action  can  no 
more  be  transferred  from  the  agent  to  another  person,  than 
the  action  itself."  E'or  did  Adam  make  men  sinners  by  con- 
veying to  them  a  morally  corrupted  nature.  "  There  is  no 
morally  corrupt  nature  distinct  from  free,  voluntary,  sinful 
exercises."  Adam  had  no  such  nature.  Supposing  that  he 
had  such  a  nature,  he  could  not  convey  it  to  his  descend- 
ants ;  for  "  the  soul  is  not  transmitted  from  father  to  son 
by  natural  generation.f  The  soul  is  spiritual ;  and  what  is 
spiritual  is  indivisible ;  and  what  is  indivisible  is  incapable 
of  propagation."  Adam's  sin  caused  our  sin  only  as  God 
determined  that  in  case  Adam  should  sin,  we  should  be 
brought  into  existence  morally  depraved. 

"  Accordingly,  in  consequence  of  Adam's  first  transgression,  God  now 
brings  his  posterity  into  the  world  in  a  state  of  moral  depravity.  But 
how  ?  The  answer  is  easy.  When  God  forms  the  souls  of  infants,  he 
forms  them  with  moral  powers,  and  makes  them  men  in  miniature.  And 
being  men  in  miniature,  he  works  in  them  as  he  does  in  other  men,  both 
to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure  ;  or  produces  those  moral  exercises 
in  their  hearts  in  which  moral  depravity  properly  and  essentially  consists. 
Moral  depravity  can  take  place  nowhere  but  in  moral  agents  ;  and  moral 
agents  can  never  act  but  only  as  they  are  acted  on  by  a  divine  operation. 
It  is  just  as  easy,  therefore,  to  account  for  moral  depravity  in  infancy,  as 
in  any  other  period  of  life. "  X^ 


Works f  i.,  233.  f  Works,  iv.,  Sermon  xxxy. 

X Ibid.,  iv.,  Sermon  xxvi.,  p.  357. 


WITH   PRIOR   NEW   ENGLAND    THEOLOGY.  297 

The  objection  that  God  is  made  the  author  of  sin,  is  an- 
fewered  bj  the  assertion  that  sin  pertains  to  the  nature  of 
actions  and  not  to  their  cause.  He  who  creates  the  poison 
of  rattlesnakes  has  not  in  himself  the  quality  to  which  he 
gives  existence.  Edwards  had  suggested  this  answer  in  his 
doctrine  that  "  the  essence  of  the  virtue  and  vice  of  the  dis- 
positions of  the  heart  and  acts  of  will,  lies  not  in  their  cause, 
but  their  nature.*"  * 

On  one  point  in  the  doctrine  as  to  the  conditions  of  re- 
sponsible agency,  Emmons  went  a  step  beyond  Hopkins. 
Emmons  maintains  that  a  knowledge  or  perception  of  law  is 
a  prerequisite  of  moral,  accountable  action.  He  contends 
that  infants  have  this  consciousness  of  duty.  Without  it,  he 
says,  they  would  be  mere  agents,  but  not  moral  agents  ;  and 
if  mere  agents  he  maintains  that  they  never  would  become 
moral  agents.f 

The  question  was,  how  are  men  responsible  for  sin  which 
they  could  not  have  prevented  and  for  continuing  to  sin  when 
they  cannot  stop  ?  Theology,  in  the  Hopkinsian  line,  had 
reached  the  propositions  that  no  individual  is  accountable 
for  any  sin  which  he  does  not  personally  commit  by  violating 
known  law ;  that  sin  begins  with  the  personal  life  of  each 
man  in  this  world,  and  is.  not  the  penalty  of  the  offence  of 
Adam,  but  only  consequent  upon  it  in  the  divine  plan  and 
appointment.  But  with  these  doctrines  there  was  coupled  a 
more  bald  determinism  than  Christian  theology  had  ever 
tolerated.  A  divine  efficiency  was  made  the  cause  of  sinful 
choices,  and  sin,  not  less  than  holiness,  was  declared  to  be  the 
product  of  divine  agency. 

Among  the  adversaries  of  the  Hopkinsian  peculiarities  is 
Dr.  Sm alley.  He  discards  the  notion  of  a  federal  represen- 
tation in  Adam,  one  individual  acting  for  the  rest,  and  com- 
pares it  to  "  a  draught  in  a  lottery."  J    He  rejects  likewise 

*  Works^  vol.  ii.,  186  seq.  f  Ibid.,  iv.,-  Sermon  xL   ' 

XWorks  (Hartford,  1803),  i.,  180,  Serm.  xi. 


THE   SYSTEM    OF   DE.    TAYLOR   IN   CONNECTION 

Edwards's  theory  of  our  identity  with  Adam,  which,  he  says, 
is  "  diving  into  metaphysics  below  the  bottom  of  things  or 
quite  beyond  tlie  fathom  of  common-sense."  *  Denying  all 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,  he  holds  that  his 
sin  occasio7i8  our  sin  from  our  birth ;  but  this  sin  is  ours  and 
not  his,  and  cis  ours  it  is  condemned.  So  far  he  coincides 
with  Emmons.  But  he  differs  in  holding  to  a  sinful  propen- 
sity or  "  disposition  back  of  exercises  " — "•  prior  to  knowl- 
edge and  prior  to  actual  sin."  f  How  shall  he  escape  from 
the  conclusion  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin,  as  being  the 
creator  of  the  soul  ?  "  Perhaps,"  he  replies,  the  creation  of 
sin  by  God  "  need  not  be  supposed.  Perhaps  the  depravity 
of  a  sinner  may  consist,  primarily,  in  mere  privation,  or  in  the 
w^ant  of  holy  principles,  and  if  so,  it  need  not  be  created."  % 
In  this  last  hypothesis  of  the  privative  character  of  sin, 
whether  he  knew  it  or  not,  he  followed  a  long  line  of  think- 
ers, including  Augustine  and  Aquinas,  who  struggled  to 
avoid  an  inference  to  which  their  logic  appeared  irresistibly 
to  carry  them.  He  combats  the  theory  of  divine  efficiency 
in  the  production  of  sin  and  in  the  hardening  of  men's 
hearts.  He  holds,  too,  that  regeneration  is  the  imparting 
of  a  new  taste,  relish,  or  disposition  anterior  to  holy  voli- 
tions, to  which  it  gives  rise.  It  is  obvious  that,  on  Smalley's 
own  premises,  this  privation,  which  constitutes  sm,  is  due  to 
the  make  of  the  soul  and  occurs  by  necessary  consequence 
from  the  act  of  the  Creator.  It  is  difficult  to  see  the  advan- 
tage of  his  theory,  in  this  aspect  of  it,  over  that  of  Emmons. 
In  more  direct  relation  to  Dr.  Taylor's  system  is  the 
theology  of  Dr.  D wight.  D wight  rejects  imputation. 
"  Moral  actions  are  not,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  transferable 
from  one  being  to  another.  The  personal  act  of  any  agent 
is,  in  its  very  nature,  the  act  of  that  agent  solely ;  and  inca- 
pable of  being  participated  by  any  other  agent.  Of  com-se, 
the  guilt  of  such  a  personal  act  is  equally  incapable  of  being 

*  Works,  i.,  p.  180.  f  Ibid.,  p.  188.  X  Ibid.,  p.  189. 


WITH   PRIOR   NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  299 

transferred  or  participated.  The  guilt  is  inherent  in  the 
action ;  and  is  attributable,  therefore,  to  the  agent  only."  * 
"  Xor  are  the  descendants  of  Adam  punished  for  his  trans- 
gression." f  The  Bible  explicitly  affirms  that  no  man  shall 
be  punished  for  the  sin  of  another.  We  become  sinners  in 
consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  but  how  we  cannot  explain. 
Inability  is  disinclination.  "  The  words  can  and  ccmnot  are 
used  in  the  Scriptures,  just  as  they  are  used  in  the  common 
intercourse  of  mankind,  to  express  willingness  or  unwilling- 
ness." X  The  general  expressions  of  Dwight  on  the  nature 
of  moral  agency  would  lead  one  to  conclude  that  he  must  hold 
all  sin  to  consist  in  the  wilful  transgression  of  known  law. 
In  the  course  of  his  sermon  on  the  Temptation  and  Fall,  he 
comes  to  the  question,  Why  did  God  permit  Adam  to  sin  ? 
He  observes  of  this  question  that  it  affects  not  the  sin  of 
Adam  only,  but  all  sin.  He  then  states  the  distinction 
between  the  permission  of  sin,  which  he  accepts,  and  the 
creating  of  it.  "  In  the  former  case  one  man  is  the  actor  of 
his  own  sin.  His  sin,  therefore,  is  wholly  his  own ;  charge- 
able only  to  himself ;  chosen  by  him  unnecessarily,  while 
possessed  of  a  power  to  choose  otherwise ;  avoidable  by 
him ;  and  of  course  guilty  and  righteously  punishable."  § 
He  declares  that  "  sin,  universally,  is  no  other  than  selfish- 
ness, or  a  preference  of  one's  self  to  all  other  beings,  and  of 
one's  private  interests  and  gratifications  to  the  well-being 
of  the  universe,  of  God,  and  the  intelligent  creation."  || 
"This,"  he  says  in  another  place,  "  is  sin  and  all  that  in  the 
Scriptures  is  meant  by  sin."  ^  In  his  sermon  on  the  be- 
nevolence of  God,  he  speaks  of  sin,  the  opposite  principle, 
as  "  that  disposition  in  us,  which  God,  by  the  dictates  of  his 
infinite  benevolence  is  in  a  sense  compelled  to  hate  and  punish, 
because  it  is  a  voluntary  ojpjposition  to  his  own  perfect  char- 
acter, and  a  fixed  enmity  to  the  weU-being  of  his  crea- 

*  Works,  Serm.  xxxii.  (ii.,  2).  f  Ibid.,  p.  4. 

X  Ibid.,  Serm.  cxxxiii.  (iv.,  467)  .  §  Ibid.,  Serm.  xxvii.  (vi.,  460). 

I  Ibid.,  Serm.  c.  (iii.,  464).  1  Ibid.,  Serm.  Ixxx.  (iii.,  162). 


300  THE    SYSTEM   OF   DR.    TAYLOR   IN    CONNECTION 

tures."  *  How  zealously  Dr.  Dwight  controverts  the  theory 
of  divine  efficiency,  as  making  God  the  author  of  sin,  all 
of  his  readers  are  aware.  In  his  sermon  to  prove  that  the 
soul  is  not  a  series  of  ideas  and  exercises,  he  says :  "A  finite 
agent  has  been  supposed  to  exist,  possessed  of  understand- 
ing to  perceive,  and  ability  to  choose,  that  which  was  good 
or  evil ;  that  which  was  conformed,  or  not  conformed  to 
the  law  under  which  it  was  placed.  Whenever  he  was  un- 
possessed of  such  an  ability,  it  has  been  further  supposed, 
that  he  was  incapable  of  either  virtue  or  vice.  According 
to  this  view  of  common  sense,  the  scheme  of  the  Scriptures 
seems  everywhere  to  be  formed."  f  But  in  his  discourse  on 
the  "Derivation  of  Human  Depravity  from  Adam,"  he  argues 
that  death  must  be  considered  an  indubitable  proof  of  the 
existence  of  depravity  in  every  moral  being  who  is  subject 
to  death.  That  infants  "are  contaminated  in  their  moral 
nature,  and  born  in  the  likeness  of  apostate  Adam "  he 
holds  to  be  a  fact  "  inevitably  proved,  so  far  as  the  most 
unexceptionable  analogy  can  prove  anything,  by  the  depraved 
moral  conduct  of  every  infant  who  lives  so  long  as  to  be 
capable  of  moral  action."  :j:  In  interpreting  Dr.  Dwight,  it 
is  important  to  ascertain  in  what  sense  he  used  the  terms 
taste,  relish,  disposition,  propensity,  principle.  He  speaks 
of  these  words  as  descriptive  of  an  unknown  and  inexplica- 
ble cause  of  holy  or  sinful  volitions. 

"  I  do  not  deny,"  he  says,  "  on  the  contrary  I  readily  admit  that  there 
is  a  cause  of  moral  action  in  intelligent  beings,  frequently  indicated  by 
the  words  principle,  affections^  7iaMts^  nature,  tendency,  propensity,  and 
several  others.  In  this  case,  however,  as  well  as  in  many  others,  it  is 
carefully  to  be  observed,  that  these  terms  indicate  a  cause  which  to  us  is 
wholly  unknown ;  except  that  its  existence  is  proved  by  its  effects," 
"  When  we  use  these  kinds  of  phraseology,  we  intend  that  a  reason  really 
exists,  although  undefinable  and  unintelligible  by  ourselves,  why  one 
mind  will,  either  usually  or  uniformly,  be  the  subject  of  holy  volitions 

*  Works^  Serm.  ix.  (i.,  157).  f  Ibid.,  Serm.  xxiv.  (i.,  406). 

X  Ibid.,  Serm.  xxxii.  (ii.,  13). 


WITH   PEIOE   NEW    ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  301 

and  another  of  sinful  ones. "  ' '  We  mean  to  indicate  a  state  of  mind, 
generally  existing,  out  of  which  holy  volitions  may,  in  one  case,  be  fairly 
expected  to  arise,  and  sinful  ones  in  another."  "  This  state  is  the  cause^ 
which  I  have  mentioned ;  a  cause  the  existence  of  which  must  be  ad- 
mitted, unless  we  acknowledge  it  to  be  a  perfect  casualty,  that  any  voli- 
tion is  sinful  rather  than  holy."  "  This  cause  is  what  is  so  often  men- 
tioned in  the  Scriptures  under  the  name  of  the  hearV  "  I  have  already 
remarked,  that  this  cause  is  unknown  except  by  its  effects."  "  It  is  not 
80  powerful,  nor  so  unchangeable,  as  to  incline  the  mind  in  which  it  ex- 
ists, so  strongly  to  holiness,  as  to  prevent  it  absolutely  from  sinning,  nor 
so  strongly  to  sin,  as  to  prevent  it  absolutely  from  acting  in  a  holy  man- 
ner." To  account  for  sin  in  a  holy  being,  we  have  to  suppose  "  that  a 
temptation,  actually  presented  to  the  mind,  is  disproportioned  in  its 
power  to  the  inclination  of  that  mind  towards  resistance."  * 

JS'ow  what  is  really  meant  by  this  unknown,  mysterious 
disposition  ?  Regeneration  is  defined  to  be  the  communica- 
tion by  God  of  a  relish  for  spiritual  objects,  which  leads  to 
holy  choices — such  a  relish  as  He  communicated  to  Adam 
prior  to  his  holy  acts.  Dr.  Taylor  considered  himself  justi- 
fied in  interpreting  these  ambiguous  terms  in  conformity 
with  the  expressions  of  Dr.  Dwight  relative  to  the  nature  of 
sin  and  of  agency,  which  have  been  cited  ;  that  is,  as  imply- 
ing voluntary  action.  By  volitions.  Dr.  Dwight  undoubtedly 
means  imperative  acts  of  will.  He  styles  the  "  new  dispo- 
sition" in  regenerated  souls,  "  disinterestedness,  love,  good- 
wiU,  benevolence." f  He  says  that  "the  influence  which 
God  exerts  on  them  by  His  Spirit  is  of  such  a  nature,  that 
their  wills,  instead  of  attempting  any  resistance  to  it,  coin- 
cide wdth  it  readily  and  cheerfully,  without  any  force  or 
constraint  on  his  part,  or  any  opposition  on  their  own."  % 
But  if  a  "  disposition  "  is  voluntary,  then  Dr.  Dwight  must 
have  held  with  Hopkins  and  Emmons  that  infants  are  vol- 
untary trangressors  of  law  from  their  birth.  Moreover,  he 
sometimes  speaks  of  holy  love  as  one  of  the  fruits  or  conse- 
quences of  the  new  relish,  instead  of  strictly  identifying  tho 

*  Works,  Serm.  xxvii.  (i.,  456).     See,  also,  Serm.  Ixxiv.  (iii.,  63). 
f  Ibid.,  Serm.  Ixxxix.  (iii.,  280).        %  Ibid-,  Serm.  Ixxii  (iii.,  40). 


3021  TIIE    SYSTEM   OF   DE.    TAYLOR   IN    CONNECTION 

two.  And  why  does  he  speak  of  this  "  disposition  "  as  of 
something  so  mysterious  and  inexplicable,  as  when  he  says : 
"  of  the  metaphysical  nature  of  this  cause,  I  am  igno- 
rant"?* 

In  interpreting  a  philosophical  or  theological  writer,  we 
are  not  at  liberty  to  say  that  he  niust  have  meant  this  or 
that,  because  otherwise  we  cannot  make  him  consistent  with 
himself.  Rather  is  it  true  that  out  of  what  is  left  obscure  or 
self -contradictory  in  a  writer,  comes  the  spur  to  further  in- 
vestigation and  progress  on  the  part  of  those  who  follow. 
In  this  case,  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  Dr.  Dwight 
had  not  arrived  at  a  clear  view  of  the  nature  of  the  holy  or 
sinful  "  disposition "  at  the  root  of  special  or  imperative 
volitions,  or  brought  this  element  into  a  consistent  relation 
to  other  features  of  his  doctrinal  system. 

One  of  the  most  industrious  and  influential  of  the  adver- 
saries of  Dr.  Taylor  was  Dr.  Leonard  Woods,  Professor  at 
Andover.  He  had  expounded  his  opinions  respecting  the 
doctrine  of  sin  in  his  Letters  to  Unita/ricms^  and  in  his  con- 
troversy with  Dr.  Ware.  He  had  expressed  himself  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  Hopkinsian  views.  He  rejects  imputa- 
tion, and  refuses  unqualifled  assent  to  the  statements  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly  in  regard  to  original  sin. 

"In  Scripture,"  he  said,  "the  word  impiite^  when  used  in  its  proper 
sense,  certainly  in  relation  to  sin,  uniformly  signifies  charging  or  reckon- 
ing to  a  man  that  which  is  his  own  attribute  or  act.  Every  attempt 
which  has  been  made  to  prove  that  God  ever  imputes  to  man  any  sinful 
disposition  or  act  which  is  not  strictly  Jiis  owriy  has  failed  of  success.  As 
it  is  one  object  of  these  letters  to  make  you  acquainted  with  the  real 
opinions  of  the  orthodox  in  New  England,  I  would  here  say,  with  the  ut- 
most frankness,  that  we  are  not  entirely  satisfied  with  the  language  used 
on  this  subject  in  the  Assembly's  Catechism.  Though  we  hold  that  cate- 
chism, taken  as  a  whole,  in  the  highest  estimation,  we  could  not  with  a 
good  conscience  subscribe  to  every  expression  it  contains,  in  relation  to  the 
doctrine  of  original  sin.  Hence  it  is  common  for  us,  when  we  declare 
our  assent  to  the  catechism,  to  do  it  with  an  express  or  implied  restric- 

*  Works^  Serm.  Ixxiv.  (ill.,  63). 


WITH   PRIOR   NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  303 

tion.  We  receive  the  catechism  generally  as  containing  a  summary  of 
the  principles  of  Christianity.  We  are  not  accountable  for  Adam's  sin, 
but  our  personal  sinfulness  is  in  consequence  of  his  sin. "  * 

He  had  defined  moral  agency  as  involving  a  knowledge  of 
duty  and  a  natural  power  of  performing  it.  "  As  accounta- 
ble beings,  we  h/me  cr  conscience  and  a  jpower  of  knowing 
a/iid 2>erforming  our  duty.  Our  zeal  in  defence  of  this  prin- 
ciple has  been  such,  as  to  occasion  no  small  umbrage  to 
some,  who  are  attached  to  every  feature  and  every  phrase- 
ology of  Calvinism.  On  this  subject  there  is,  in  fact,  a  well 
known  difference  between  our  views,  and  those  of  some 
modern,  as  well  as  more  ancient  divines,  who  rank  high  on 
the  side  of  orthodoxy."  f  All  sin  consists  in  the  exercise  of 
a  disposition  contrary  to  what  the  law  requires."  :|:  "  Sin  in 
its  highest  sense  is  sin  in  the  heart,  that  is  wrong  affection, 
corrupt  inclination."  §  As  to  the  time  when  sin  begins,  Dr. 
Woods  remarks : 

**  I  make  it  no  part  of  my  object  in  this  discussion  to  determine  pre- 
cisely the  time  when  moral  agency  begins.  There  are  diflaculties  in  the 
way  of  such  a  determination,  which  I  feel  myself  wholly  unable  to  sur- 
mount. My  position  is,  that  as  soon  as  men  are  moral  agents,  they  are 
sinners."  ''It  seems  to  me  as  unreasonable  and  absurd  to  say,  that 
human  beings  are  really  sinners  before  they  are  moral  agents,  as  to  say 
that  birds  or  fishes  are  sinners."  | 

But,  notwithstanding  his  caution  in  defining  the  date  of 
incipient  moral  agency,  he  labors  to  disprove  the  negative 
position  that  sin  cannot  begin  with  the  beginning  of  the 
soul's  life.  There  is  no  difficulty  in  supposing  them  to  sin 
from  birth,  and  such  he  plainly  indicates  to  be  his  opinion.  T" 

In  1835,  Dr.  Woods  published  an  essay  on  native  de- 
pravity.    Through  a  considerable  part  of  this  essay,  he  ad- 

*  Letters,  etc.  (Boston,  1822),  p.  32.  We  quote  from  the  controversial 
papers  of  Dr.  Woods  in  the  original  editions,  and  not  in  the  altered  form 
in  which  they  appear  in  his  collected  works. 

t  Letters,  etc.  (Boston,  1822),  p.  95.  %  Ibid.,  p.  141. 

§  Ibid.,  p.  305.  i  Ibid.,  p.  183.  If  Ibid.,  p.  305  et 


304      THE  SYSTEM  OF  DE.  TAYLOR  IN  CONNECTION 

vocates  the  opinions  which  have  just  been  described.  He 
argues  that  infants  may  be  capable  of  "  moral  emotions  "  of 
a  sinful  character  from  the  start,  inasmuch  as  the  divine  law 
is  written  on  the  hearty  and  therefore  no  instruction  from 
without  is  requisite  to  render  them  accountable  agents."^* 
He  explains  that  he  means  bj  their  having  the  law  written 
on  their  hearts,  that  they  have  "  moral  faculties  and  moral 
perceptions.  "  f  They  have  fi'om  the  first  "  some  feeble 
degree  of  moral  affection  " — some  degree  of  "  personal  de- 
pravity." X  "  Children  are  in  some  small  degree  moral 
agents  from  the  first."  § 

Having  pursued  this  line  of  argument,  he  makes  one  of 
the  most  remarkable  transitions  which  we  have  ever  met 
with  in  the  course  of  our  theological  reading.  He  proposes 
a  different  hypothesis  which  he  at  first  suggests  as  plausible 
and  entitled  to  consideration,  but  which  he  proceeds  to  de- 
fend and  avow  as  his  own  belief.  Stated  in  his  own  words, 
it  is  that  the  depravity  of  man  "consists  originally  in  a 
wrong  disposition  or  a  comijpt  nature,  which  is  antecedent  to 
any  sinful  emotions,  and  from  w^hich,  as  an  inward  source, 
all  sinful  emotions  and  actions  proceed."  ||  There  is  an  in- 
clination, disposition,  propensity,  or  tendency  to  sin,  existing 
prior  to  all  m\iu[  feelings  even,  and  out  of  that  hidden  foun- 
tain all  such  feelings,  and  all  sinful  choices  and  actions  flow. 
This  propensity  to  sin  is  itself  sinful — the  verj/ofis  et  origo 
malorum.  Br.  Woods  quietly  ignores  his  doctrine  as  to  the 
nature  of  moral  agency,  and  the  nature  of  sin,  and  assumes  the 
existence,  back  of  all  exercises,  of  a  constitutional,  innate,  in- 
herited, and  propagated  propensity  of  which  sin  is  the  object. 

Turning  back  now  to  his  controversy  with  Ware,  we  find 
the  same  doctrine  less  plainly  suggested,  and  standing  side 
by  side  with  the  Hopkinsian  propositions  which  have  been 
already  noticed  as  making  up  the  main  part  of  that  earlier 
discussion.     There  are  passages  in  which  he  traces  sin  to 

*  Essay,  p.  147.  f  Il>id.,  p.  150.  %  Ibid.,  p.  155. 

§  Ibid.,  p.  154  J  Ibid.,  p.  158. 


WITH   PRIOK   NEW    ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  306 

what  is  "original  or  native  in  our  moral  constitution^'''*'  "a 
uniformly  operating  cause  or  law  of  nature,"  passing  from 
father  to  son  like  "  the  serpent's  bite,  the  lion's  fierceness," 
or  "  intelligence,  gratitude,  sympathy,  or  kindness,"  in  the 
human  soul,  f  This  propensity  is  something  distinct  from 
the  "natural  appetites,  affections,  and  passions,"  and  is 
"  itself  sinful ;  yea,  it  is  what  every  one  must  consider  as 
the  very  essence  of  sin."  :j: 

In  his  essay,  after  advocating  both  these  diverse  forms  of 
doctrine,  in  the  manner  stated  above,  he  makes  an  attempt 
to  unite  them  ;  but  it  is  unnecessary  to  trace  his  path  in  this 
unsuccessful  enterprise. 

Besides  the  questions  which  have  been  specially  noticed 
above,  there  is  another  great  topic  which  could  not  escape  the 
attention  of  the  ]N^ew  England  divines.  We  refer  to  the 
permission  of  sin  and  the  kindred  questions  which  belong 
to  the  theodicy.  This  subject,  as  all  know,  was  debated  in 
the  ancient  heathen  schools.  It  was  elaborately  handled  by 
the  scholastic  writers,  and  by  Thomas  Aquinas  in  particu- 
lar. Differing  from  Scot  us,  who,  like  Anselm  and  Abelard, 
held  that  the  present  is  the  best  possible  system,  Aquinas 
maintained,  though  in  doubtful  consistency  with  some  of 
his  own  principles,  §  that  we  can  conceive  of  the  present 
system  of  things  as  amplified  and  extended,  whence,  indeed, 
a  system  in  this  sense  better  would  result ;  but  within  the 
present  system  we  can  conceive  of  no  change  that  would 
not  be  an  evil.  Sin,  in  itself  considered,  is  an  evil,  but,  as 
related  to  the  whole  order  of  things  in  which  it  has  a  place, 
this  is  not  the  fact.  Sin  is  not  the  direct  means  of  the 
greatest  good ;  its  proper  tendencies  are  not  good,  but  evil; 
yet,  indirectly,  as  an  indispensable  condition,  it  is  the  neces- 
sary means  of  the  greatest  good.     It  follows  from  the  per- 

*  Letters  and  Reply,  p.  159. 

t  Ibid.,  pp.  158,  162.  %  Ibid.,  pp.  334,  335. 

§  See,  on  the  relation  of  this  doctrine  to  the  system  of  Aquinas,  Rit- 
ter,  Qesch,  d.  Christ,  Phil,  iv.,  383. 


306  THE    SYSTEM    OF   DR.    TAYLOE    IN    CONNECTION 

fections  of  God,  from  his  omnipotence  and  benevolence, 
that  it  is  good  that  evil  exists.  If  sin  did  not  exist  when 
and  where  it  does,  the  system  would  be  damaged  in  other 
respects.  Sometimes  the  schoolmen  appealed  to  the  princi- 
ple of  variety^  and  argued  that  virtue  is  set  off  advanta- 
geously by  the  contrast  of  moral  evil,  or  that  sin  is  useful 
as  a  test  and  purifier  of  the  good,  or  that,  without  sin,  forms 
of  excellence — patience,  for  example — could  never  exist. 
Commonly  they  supported  their  denial  of  the  divine  author- 
ship of  sin  by  the  fallacious  position  which  was  borrowed 
from  Augustine,  that  sin  is  a  mere  defect — is  nihil.  But 
their  real  doctrine  is  that  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the 
greatest  good.  The  old  Protestant  theology  came  to  a  like 
conclusion.  It  is  the  conviction  of  Calvin  that  because  sin 
exists  under  the  divine  administration,  in  the  system  of 
which  God  is  the  author,  we  must  suppose  it  preferable  that 
sin  should  exist  rather  than  not.  It  is  this  conviction  in 
great  part  that  leads  him  to  deny  that  sin  is  barely  permit- 
ted, and  to  maintain  a  volitive  permission,  and,  in  this  sense, 
an  ordination  of  sin  on  the  part  of  God.  Hence  he  has 
often  been  thought  a  supralapsarian,  as  if  he  held  even  the 
first  sin  to  be  an  object  of  an  efficient  decree.  But  this  is 
not  his  doctrine,  as  a  careful  study  of  the  Consensus  Gene- 
vensis,  as  well  as  of  his  writings  generally,  will  demonstrate. 
He  constantly  falls  back  on  the  statement  of  Augustine, 
who  is  acknowledged  to  be  sublapsarian,  that  God  not  only 
permits,  but  wills  to  permit,  sin ;  and  he  puts  his  whole 
theory  into  this  sentence.  Calvin's  principles  respecting 
the  divine  justice,  as  underlying  all  decrees  and  providen- 
tial action,  clash  with  the  supralapsarian  scheme.  He  labors 
to  repel  the  imputation  that  he  holds  God  to  be  the  author 
of  moral  evil ;  yet,  as  we  have  said,  he  could  not  escape, 
as  he  thought,  from  the  doctrine  that  it  is  good  that  evil 
exists.*     This  doctrine,  that  the  existence  of  sin  is  to  be 

*  Not  a  few  distinguished  scholars,  and  among  them,  Gieseler,  Julius 
Mtiller,  Neander,  and  Baur,  have  supposed  Calvin  to  go  beyond  Angus- 


WITH    PEIOR   NEW    ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  307 

preferred  to  its  non-existence — ^that  sin  is  the  necessary 
means  of  the  greatest  good,  passed  into  the  ]^ew  England 
theology.  Hopkins  is  full  of  it.  Bellamy  advocates  it  in 
an  elaborate  treatise.  He  holds  that  this  is  the  best  of  all 
possible  systems ;  it  will  be  more  holy  and  happy  than  if  sin 
and  misery  had  never  entered  it ;  God  could  have  kept  all 
his  creatures  holy  without  infringing  on  their  free  agency, 
but  the  result  would  have  involved  a  greater  loss  than  gain."* 
Sin,  "  in  itself  and  in  all  its  natural  tendencies,"  is  "  infi- 
nitely evil ; "  t  yet  every  sin  is  overruled  "  to  a  greater  good 
on  the  whole."  He  says,  and  quotes  Augustine  to  the  same 
effect,  that  it  is  good  that  evil  should  exist. 

Dr.  Woods  in  his  controversy  with  Ware,  had  argued  in  a 
similar  strain ;  maintaining  that  the  system  is  better  than  it 
would  be  if  sin  were  not  in  it. 

When  Dr.  Taylor  began  his  investigations,  New  England 
theology  asserted  a  doctrine  of  natural  ability,  as  the  condi- 
tion of  responsible  agency ;  it  rejected  imputation  in  every 
form ;  but  outside  of  the  Hopkinsian  school,  it  associated 
with  this  denial  a  vague  theory  of  an  hereditary  sinful  taint, 
or  a  sinful  propensity  to  sin,  propagated  with  the  race — what 
Dr.  Taylor  termed  "  physical  depravity ; " — and  it  vindicated 

tine  in  connecting  the  first  sin  with  divine  agency.  Strong  expressions 
seeming  to  favor  this  view,  are  in  the  Inst,  iii.,  xxiii.,  6,  8,  and  in  the 
Respons.  ad  Calvm.  Neb.  {Works.,  Amst.  ed,,  torn,  viii.,  p.  634).  Bat 
this  last  tract  is  the  work  of  Beza,  for  which  Calvin  is  not  responsible. 
Judging  by  the  passages  in  the  Institutes,  without  reference  to  other  ex- 
pressions of  Calvin,  we  should  unhesitatingly  agree  with  the  interpre- 
ters above  named.  But,  in  other  writings,  as  we  have  said,  he  plants 
himself  on  the  Augustinian  formula.  His  doctrine  is  that  of  a  volitive 
permission.  See,  for  example,  Cons.  Oenev.  (Niemeyer's  ed.),  p.  230. 
That  justice  lies  back  of  all  acts  of  the  divine  will,  is  emphatically  as- 
serted. See  tom.  viii. ,  p.  638.  He  says  :  ' '  Quanquam  mihi  Dei  volun- 
tas summa  est  causa,  ubique  tamen  doceo,  ubi  in  ejus  consiliis  vel  operi- 
bus  causa  non  apparet;  apud  eum  esse  absconditam,  et  nihil  nisi  juste  et 
sapienter  decreverit,"  "  Clare  affirmo  nihil  decernere  sine  optima  causa: 
quae  si  hodie  nobis  incognita  est,  ultimo  die  patefiet." 

*  Works^  ii.,  p.  01  seq.  f  Ibid.,  p.  145. 


308  THE    SYSTEM    OF    DR.    TAYLOR   IN   CONNECTION 

the  introduction,  or  permission,  of  sin,  by  affirming  that  sin 
is  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good,  and  that  the 
system  of  things  is  better  with  sin  than  without  it. 

The  aim  of  Dr.  Taylor  was  to  relieve  New  England  theo- 
logy of  remaining  difficulties  on  the  side  of  human  responsi- 
bility. He  could  not  regard  the  prevailing  theology  as  con- 
sistent with  itself  or  as  successful  in  solving  the  problems 
which  it  professed  to  solve.* 

The  fundamental  question  was  that  of  liberty  and  neces- 
sity. There  must  be,  on  the  one  hand,  a  firm  foundation  for 
the  doctrine  of  decrees,  and  universal  providential  govern- 
ment, and  for  the  exercise  of  resignation,  submission,  and 
confidence  on  the  part  of  men  in  view  of  all  events ;  other- 
wise, the  Calvinistic  system  is  given  up.  There  must  be,  on 
the  other  hand,  a  full  power  in  men  to  avoid  sin  and  perform 
their  duty ;  otherwise,  the  foundation  of  accountability  is 
gone,  and  the  commands  and  entreaties  of  the  Bible  are  a 
mockery. 

The  true  solution  of  the  problem,  in  Dr.  Taylor's  view,  is 
in  the  union  of  the  doctrine  of  the  previous  certainty  of 
every  act  of  the  will — a  certainty  given  by  its  antecedents, 
collectively  taken — with  the  power  of  contrary  choice.  Free- 
dom is  exemption  from  something  ;  it  is  exemption  from  the 
constraining  operation  of  that  law  of  cause  and  effect  which 
brings  events  to  pass  in  the  material  world.  If  the  antece- 
dents of  choice  produce  the  consequent  according  to  that 
law,  without  qualification,  there  is  no  liberty.  Yet  Dr.  Tay- 
lor did  not  hold  to  the  liberty  of  indifference  or  of  contin- 
gence,  which  had  been  charged  upon  the  Arminians,  and 
had  been  denied  by  his  predecessors.  He  held  to  a  connec- 
tion between  choice  and  its  antecedents,  of  such  a  character 
as  to  give  in  every  case  a  previous  certainty  that  the  former 
will  be  what  it  actually  is.     The  ground,  or  reason  of  this 

*  See  the  letter  of  Dr.  Taylor  to  Dr.  Beecher  (Jan.  14tli,  1819),  written 
before  Dr.  Taylor  became  professor,  and  describing  what  was  needed  in 
theology. — Life  of  Beecher ,  i.,  384. 


WITH    PRIOR   NEW   ENGLAND    THEOLOGY.  309 

certainty  lies  in  the  constitution  of  the  agent  and  the  motives 
under  which  he  acts ;  that  is  to  say,  in  the  antecedents  taken 
together.  The  infallible  connection  of  these  with  the  conse- 
quent, the  divine  mind  perceives  ;  though  we  may  not  dog- 
matize on  the  exact  mode  of  his  perception.  The  precise 
nature  of  the  connection  between  the  antecedents  and  conse- 
quent, Dr.  Taylor  did  not  profess  to  explain ;  but  he  held 
that  the  same  antecedents  will  uniformly  be  followed  by  the 
same  consequent.  In  short,  he  asserted  that  choice  is  a 
phenomenon  sui  generis^  not  taking  place  after  the  analogy 
of  physical  events,  but  involving  the  power  to  the  contrary. 
There  is  another  species  of  causation,  another  category  of 
causes,  besides  that  with  which  we  are  made  acquainted  in 
the  realm  of  physical  phenomena.  There  are  causes  which 
do  not  necessitate  their  effect,  but  simply  and  solely  give  the 
certainty  of  it.  Now,  all  admit  that  every  event  is  pre- 
viously certain.  It  is  a  true  proposition  that  what  is  to  oc- 
cur to-morrow,  will  thus  occur.  No  matter,  then,  what  may 
be  the  ground  of  this  certainty ;  as  long  as  the  events  in 
question  are  not  necessitated,  there  is  no  interference  with 
moral  liberty. 

Augustinians  and  Calvinists,  except  the  supralapsarians, 
had  admitted  the  power  of  contrary  choice  in  the  case  of  the 
first  sin,  as  well  as  in  the  case  of  the  previous  moral  actions 
of  Adam.*  They  erred,  according  to  Dr.  Taylor,  in  assum- 
ing that  this  power  was  lost,  and  that  the  continuance  of  it 
is  incompatible  with  the  actual  permanence  of   character. 

*  It  is  plain  that  Augnstinians  are  cut  off  from  the  use  of  three  very 
common  arguments  against  Dr.  Taylor,  The  first  is  that  the  supposition 
of  a  power  of  contrary  choice  admits  the  possibility  of  an  event  without  a 
cause.  But  they  themselves  make  this  supposition  in  the  case  of  Adam. 
The  second  is  that  a  choice,  in  case  there  is  a  power  to  the  contrary,  can- 
not be  foreseen.  The  third  is  that  the  supposition  of  such  a  power  would 
make  holiness  self-originated,  or  the  product  of  creaturely  activity.  But 
is  not  this  inference  equally  necessary  in  the  case  of  Adam  ? 

It  will  be  understood  that  we  are  not  engaged  in  expounding  views  of 
our  own,  but  in  explaining  those  of  Dr.  Taylor. 


310  THE    SYSTEM   OF   DE.    TAYLOE   Ei    CONNECTION 

Rather,  as  he  believed,  is  this  power  involved  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  freedom,  and  recognized  as  real  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, as  well  as  bj  the  common  sense  of  mankind. 

The  leading  principles  of  Dr.  Taylor's  system  may  now  be 
stated  in  an  intelligible  manner. 

1.  All  sin  is  the  voluntary  action  of  the  sinner,  in  diso- 
bedience to  a  known  law.  The  doctrine  of  a  "  physical,"  or 
hereditary,  sin,  which  had  lingered  in  the  New  England  the- 
ology, though  inconsistent  with  its  principles,  and  was  de- 
fended by  Dr.  Woods  and  Dr.  Tyler,  was  discarded  by  Dr. 
Taylor.  In  his  doctrine  of  the  voluntariness  of  all  moral 
action,  he  agreed  with  the  Hopkinsians.  This,  in  truth,  is 
the  ancient,  orthodox  opinion,  coming  down  from  the  days 
of  Augustine.  On  this  point  we  shall  speak  in  another  part 
of  this  Essay. 

2.  Sin,  however,  is  a  permanent  principle,  or  state  of  the 
will,  a  governing  pui^ose,  underlying  all  subordinate  voli- 
tions and  acts.  Stated  in  theological  language,  it  is  the 
elective  preference  of  the  world  to  God,  as  the  soul's  chief 
good.  It  may  be  resolved  into  selfishness.  An  avaricious 
man  makes  money  the  object  of  his  abiding  preference.  He 
acts  perpetually  under  the  influence  of  this  active,  voluntary, 
continuous,  principle.  He  lays  plans,  undertakes  enterprises, 
encounters  hazard  and  toil,  under  its  silent  dictation.  A  like 
thing  is  true  of  an  ambitious  man,  a  voluptuary,  and  of 
every  other  sinner.  Each  shapes  his  conduct  in  conformity 
with  the  dictates  of  an  immanent,  deep-lying,  yet  voluntary 
or  elective  preference — choice — of  some  form  of  earthly 
good.  In  its  generic  fonn,  sin  is  supreme  love  to  the  world, 
or  the  preference  of  the  world  to  God.  It  is  a  single  princi- 
ple, however  varied  its  expressions,  and  is  totally  evil.  It  is 
the  "  evil  treasure  of  the  heart."  It  excludes  moral  excel- 
lence, since  no  man  can  serve  two  masters. 

This  profound  conception  of  the  nature  of  character  is  in 
its  spirit  Augustinian.  Dr.  Taylor  held  that  character  is 
simple  in  its  essence.     It  is  a  principle,  seated  in  the  will, 


WITH   PKIOK   NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  311 

existing  and  continuing,  by  the  will's  consent,  knowingly 
cherished,  yet  a  fountain  of  action  so  deep  that  it  rarely 
comes  into  the  foreground  of  consciousness.  Only  in  an 
hour  of  earnest  reflection  is  a  man's  attention  turned  back 
to  this  governing  purpose  of  his  life. 

We  regard  this  feature  of  Dr.  Taylor's  system  as  an  im- 
portant contribution  to  theological  science.  That  "  disposi- 
tion," "  propensity,"  "  inclination,"  which  had  so  puzzled  his 
predecessors  in  New  England,  he  defined  accurately,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  conceptions  of  moral  agency  which  they 
had  themselves  laid  down. 

3.  Though  sin  belongs  to  the  individual  and  consists  in  sin- 
ning, yet  the  fact  that  every  man  sins  from  the  beginning 
of  responsible  agency  is  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of  Adam. 
It  is  certain  that  every  man  will  sin  from  the  moment  when 
he  is  capable  of  moral  action,  and  will  continue  to  be  sinful, 
until  he  is  regenerated ;  and  this  certainty,  which  is  abso- 
lute though  it  is  no  necessity  and  coexists  with  power  to 
the  opposite  action,  is  somehow  due  to  Adam's  sin.  In  this 
sense,  Adam  was  placed  on  trial  for  the  whole  human  race.* 
On  the  relation  of  the  sinfulness  of  men  to  the  sin  of  Adam, 
Dr.  Taylor  agreed  with  the  New  England  divines  generally 
after  the  first  Edwards.  As  to  when  responsible  agency,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  begins.  Dr.  Taylor  did  not  profess  to  state. 
He  was  not  concerned  to  combat  the  doctrine  of  a  sin  from 
birth,  though  he  did  not  hold  it :  if  sin  was  correctly  defined 
and  the  right  doctrine  as  to  the  conditions  of  responsibility 
was  held  fast,  he  was  satisfied. 

There  is  in  men,  according  to  Dr.  Taylor,  a  bias,  or  ten- 
dency,— sometimes  called  a  propensity,  or  disposition — to 
sin ;  but  this  is  not  itself  sinful ;  it  is  the  cause  or  occasion 
of  sin.  Kor  is  it  to  be  conceived  of  as  a  separate  desire  of 
the  soul,  having  respect  to  sin  as  an  object.  Such  a  pro- 
pensity as  this  does  not  exist  in  human  nature.     But  this 

♦  Repealed  Theology^  p.  259. 


312  THE   SYSTEM   OF   DR.    TAYLOR   ESf   CONNECTION 

"bias  results  from  the  condition  of  our  propensities  to  natural 
good,  as  related  to  the  higher  powers  of  the  soul  and  to  the 
circumstances  in  which  we  are  placed.  As  a  consequence  of 
this  tendency  or  bias,  there  is  a  sinful  disposition,  or  the 
wrong  governing  purpose  before  described,  which  is  the  cause 
of  all  other  sins,  ^'i^^^Z/^  excepted.* 

It  is  proper  to  say  that  men  are  sinners  by  nature,  since, 
in  all  the  appropriate  circumstances  of  their  being,  they  sin 
from  the  first.  If  a  change  of  circumstances,  as  by  trans- 
ferring them  from  one  place  on  the  earth  to  another,  or 
from  one  set  of  circumstances  to  a  more  favorable  one, 
would  alter  the  fact  and  render  them,  or  any  of  them,  holy 
from  the  start,  then  their  sin  might  properly  be  attributed 
to  circumstances  and  not  to  nature.  The  certainty  of  their 
sin  as  soon  as  they  are  capable  of  sinning  is  the  conse- 
quence of  two  factors,  the  constitution  and  condition  of  the 
soul  (subjective),  and  the  situation  (objective).  These 
together  constitute  nature  in  the  statement,  ^'  we  are  sinners 
by  nature." 

4.  Man  is  the  proximate  efficient  cause  of  all  his  volun- 
tary states  and  actions.  The  Hopkinsian  theory  of  divine 
efficiency  is  rejected.  No  man  is  necessitated  to  choose  as 
he  does.  There  is  ever  a  power  to  the  contrary.  A  sinner 
can  cease  to  love  the  world  supremely  and  can  choose  God 
for  his  portion.  He  not  only  can  if  he  will ;  but  Dr.  Taylor 
uttered  his  protest  against  what  he  considered  a  necessita- 
rian evasion,  by  affirming  that  "  he  can  if  he  wonbtP  He 
did  not  admit  that  the  possible  meanings  of  the  question, 
Can  a  man  choose  otherwise  than  he  does,  are  exhausted  in 
the  senseless  tautology  and  the  infinite  series,  into  one  or  the 
other  of  which  Edwards  and  his  followers  insisted  on  resolv- 
ing it.  He  did  not  admit  that  a  man  could  properly  be 
called  fi*ee  and  responsible,  merely  because  he  wills  to  sin, 
provided  it  is  assumed  that  his  will  is  determined  in  its 

*  Ibid.,  p.  194. 


WITH    PRIOR   NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  313 

action  by  laws  like  those  which  govern  the  association  of 
ideas,  or  by  a  positive  exertion  of  divine  efficiency. 

5.  Inseparable  from  the  foregoing  assertion  of  a  power  to 
the  contrary  choice,  however,  is  the  doctrine  of  a  moral  in- 
ability on  the  part  of  the  sinner  to  repent  and  convert  him- 
self. He  can,  but  it  is  certain  he  will  not.  His  repentance 
without  the  help  of  the  Spirit  is  therefore  just  as  hopeless 
as  if  it  were  completely  out  of  his  power.  To  expect  him 
to  repent  by  his  own  unaided  powers  is  not  less  vain,  and 
so  far  not  less  irrational,  than  if  he  were  destitute  of  these 
powers.  "  Certainty  with  power  to  the  contrary  "  is  a  con- 
densed statement  of  the  truth  on  both  sides.  Thus  the  sin- 
ner is  both  responsible  and  dependent — perfectly  responsi- 
ble, yet  absolutely  dependent.  It  is  just  to  require  him  to 
repent ;  it  is  just  to  punish  his  impenitence  ;  yet  his  only 
hope  is  in  the  merciful  and  gi»acious  help  of  God. 

6.  I^atural  ability  being  a  real  power  and  not  an  incapa- 
ble faculty,  there  must  be  something  in  a  sinner's  mind  to 
which  right  motives  can  appeal — some  point  of  attachment 
for  the  influences  of  the  law  and  the  Gospel.  Hence,  the 
importance  of  the  distinction  between  the  sensibility  and 
will,  or  of  the  threefold  classification  of  mental  powers, 
which  Dr.  Taylor  was  among  the  first  to  introduce.  The 
writers  before  him  had  commonly  followed  the  old  division 
of  the  mind  into  understanding  and  will.  By  failing  to 
distinguish  carefully  the  involuntary  part  of  our  nature  fi'om 
the  will  proper — the  elective  faculty — they  had  often  fallen 
into  a  confusing  ambiguity.*  It  is  doubtful  whether  the 
doctrine  of  divine  efficiency,  or  of  a  creation  of  sinful  as 
well  as  holy  volitions,  would  have  come  in,  if  the  threefold 
classification  had  been  sharply  made.     Such  terms  as  incli- 

[*Dr.  Ide  subjoins  to  one  of  the  Sermons  of  Emmons  this  note  :  "  The 
terms  will,  choice,  and  volition,  are  generally  used  by  Dr.  Emmons  as 
they  are  by  President  Edwards,  in  a  general  sense,  including  the  affec- 
tions, desires,  etc.,  as  well  as  the  executive  acts  of  the  mind."  Emmons's 
Works^  new  ed.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  449.] 
14 


314  THE   SYSTEM   OF   DE.    TAYLOE   IN   CONNECTION 

nation,  disposition,  propensity,  are  used  now  of  a  choice  and 
now  of  an  impulse  or  tendency  anterior  to  clioice.  But  a 
sinful  man  can  be  made  to  feel  the  force  of  truth,  and  this, 
too,  without  supposing  him  to  be  thereby  in  any  degree 
holy  ;  for  there -is  a  neutral  part  of  his  nature  which  truth 
can  move.  Hence,  too,  when  he  is  commanded  in  the  Bible 
to  consider.his  ways,  he  does  not  of  necessity  sin  in  doing 
go.     This  neutral  part  is  the  region  of  the  sensibilities.* 

What  is  the  particular  feeling  which  may  thus  be  ad- 
dressed ?  According  to  Dr.  Taylor,  it  is  the  love  of  happi- 
ness, or  self-love. 

We  are  thus  brought  to  the  consideration  of  what  has 
been  deemed  one  of  the  most  obnoxious  features  in  his  sys- 
tem— "  the  self-love  theory."  It  has  been  so  often  misun- 
derstood that  we  shall  give  some  space  to  explaining  it. 

Dr.  Taylor  never  held  that  love  to  God,  or  Ipenevolence, 
or  moral  excellence,  however  it  may  be  designated,  is  a 
subordinate  or  executive  volition  dictated  by  the  predomi- 
nant choice  of  one's  own  happiness.  He  never  held  that  a 
man  is  first  to  choose  his  own  highest  happiness,  and  then 
choose  the  highest  happiness  of  the  universe  subordinately. 

In  the  first  place,  Dr.  Taylor  believed,  with  a  great  com- 
pany of  philosophers,  from  Aristotle  to  the  present  time,  that 
the  involuntary  love  or  desire  of  personal  happiness  is  the  sub- 
jective, psychological  spring  of  all  choices.f     Says  Locke : 


*  The  existence  of  a  neutral  part  of  our  nature,  to  which  motives  can 
appeal,  is  admitted  by  opponents  of  Dr.  Taylor,  in  the  case  of  holy  Adam. 
See  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge,  Outlines  of  Theology,  p.  237. 

f  Says  Augustine  :  "  oranes  istae  et  alias  tales  voluntates  suos  proprios 
fines  habent,  qui  referuntur  ad  finem  illius  voluntatis  qua  volumus  beate 
vivere,  et  ad  earn  pervenire  vitani  quae  non  referitur  ad  aliud,  sed  amanti 
per  se  ipsam  sufl&ciat."  De  Trin.,  xi.  6.  See  also,  De  Lib.  Arbit,  I. ,  xiii. 
(Conf.,  X.,  xxi.)  etc.  It  is  the  scholastic  maxim,  "  quidquid  appetitur, 
appetitur  sub  specie  boni."  But  the  doctrine  is  older  than  Augustine.  It 
is  the  groundwork  of  Aristotle's  Ethical  discussion.  See  Nic.  Eth.,  I.,  vii., 
and  the  whole  first  book  of  this  treatise,  Calvin  calls  it  the  common 
doctrine  of  philosophers,  to  which  he  gives  his  assent.    Inst. ,  II. ,  ii. ,  26. 


WITH    PEIOE    NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  315 

"  That  which  in  the  train  of  our  voluntary  actions  determines  the  will 
to  any  change  of  operation,  is  some  present  uneasiness ;  which  is,  or  at 
least  is  always  accompanied  with  that  of  desire.  Desire  is  always  moved 
by  evil,  to  fly  it ;  because  a  total  freedom  from  pain  always  makes  a 
necessary  part  of  our  happiness  ;  but  every  good,  nay,  every  greater  good 
does  not  constantly  move  desire,  because  it  may  not  make,  or  may  not 
be  taken  to  make,  any  necessary  part  of  our  happiness ;  for  all  that  we 
desire  is  only  to  be  happy."  "  All  other  good,  however  great  in  reality 
or  appearance,  excites  not  a  man's  desires,  who  looks  not  on  it  to  make 
a  part  of  that  happiness  wherewith  he,  in  his  present  thoughts,  can  sat- 
isfy himself.  Happiness  under  this  view,  every  one  constantly  pursues, 
and  desires  what  makes  any  part  of  it :  other  things  acknowledged  to  be 
good,  he  can  look  upon  without  desire,  pass  by,  and  be  content  without. " 

He  develops  and  defends  this  view  at  length,  in  his  chap- 
ter on  "Power,"  from  which  the  preceding  passages  are 
quoted.  President  Edwards  adopts  the  doctrine  tliat  the 
"  will  is  as  the  greatest  apparent  good."  "  Whatever  is 
perceived  or  apprehended  by  an  intelligent  and  voluntary 
agent,  which  has  the  nature  and  influence  of  a  motive  to 
volition  or  choice,  is  considered  or  perceived  as  good;  nor 
has  it  any  tendency  to  engage  the  election  of  the  soul  in  any 
further  degree  than  it  appears  such."  "  To  appear  good  to 
the  mind  as  I  use  the  phrase,  is  the  same  as  to  appear  agree- 
able, or  seem  pleasing  to  the  mind."  Explicitly  and  many 
times,  in  connection  wdtli  these  passages,  he  uses  "  pleasure," 
"  enjoyment,"  "  happiness,"  as  synonyms  of  "  good."  *  Even 
Bishop  Butler  says : 

*  "  In  some  sense,  the  most  benevolent,  generous  person  in  the  world, 
seeks  his  own  happiness  in  doing  good  to  others ;  because  he  places  his 
happiness  in  their  good."  Edwards's  God's  Chief  End  in  Creation  {iii., 
38).  He  expounds  this  view  more  fully  and  emphatically  in  his  Charity 
and  its  Fruits,  pp.  232,  233. 

' '  There  9,re  two  kinds  of  original  good ;  enjoyment  and  deliverance  from 
Buffering ;  or  as  the  case  may  be,  from  the  danger  of  suffering.  These 
two  are  the  only  objects  of  desire  to  percipient  beings  ;  and  to  intelligent 
beings,  as  truly  as  any  others.  When  virtue  itself  is  desired,  it  is  desired 
only  for  the  enjoyment  it  furnishes.  Were  there  no  such  things  in  the 
universe  there  would  be  no  such  thing  as  desire ;  and  consequently  no 
such  thing  as  volition,  or  action."     "A  moral  government  is  entirely 


316  THE    SYSTEM   OF   DE.    TAYLOR   IN   C0N1!TE0TI0N 

"  Every  particular  affection,  even  the  love  of  our  neig-hbor,  is  as  really 
our  own  affection  as  self-love  ;  and  the  pleasure  arising  from  its  gratifica- 
tion is  as  much  my  own  pleasure,  as  the  pleasure  self-love  would  have 
from  knowing  I  myself  should  be  happy  some  time  hence,  would  be  my 
own  pleasure.  And  if,  because  every  particular  affection  is  a  man's  own, 
and  the  pleasure  arising  from  its  gratification  his  own  pleasure,  or  pleas- 
ure to  himself,  such  particular  affection  must  be  called  self-love  ;  accord- 
ing to  this  way  of  speaking,  no  creature  can  possibly  act  but  merely  from 
self-love  ;  and  every  action  and  every  affection  whatever  is  to  be  resolved 
up  into  this  one  principle."  "All  particular  affections,  resentment,  be- 
nevolence, love  of  arts,  equally  lead  to  a  course  of  action  for  their  own 
gratification,  i.  e.,  the  gratification  of  ourselves;  and  the  gratification  of 
each  gives  delight.  So  far  then  it  is  manifest  they  have  ail  the  same  re- 
spect to  private  interest." 

In  claiming  that  choice  universally  proceeds  from  a  con- 
stitutional love  of  happiness,  Dr.  Taylor  considered  himself 
in  agreement  with  writers  on  mental  science  generally,  and 
he  regarded  the  outcry  against  him  on  account  of  this  doc- 
trine as  mostly  the  offspring  of  ignorance. 

Dr.  Taylor  held  that  the  object  of  choice  is  either  happi- 
ness of  some  kind  or  degree,  or  the  means  of  happiness.  In 
the  language  of  President  Edwards,  "  volition  itself  is  al- 
ways determined  by  that  in  or  about  the  mind's  view  of  the 
object,  which  causes  it  to  appear  most  agreeable."  But  a 
broad  distinction  is  to  be  made  between  the  direct  and  the 
indirect  means  of  happiness.  That  which  is  chosen  as  the 
direct  means  of  happiness  to  the  subject  of  the  choice,  is 
chosen  for  its  own  sake.  If  I  love  knowledge  and  pursue  it, 
in  order  to  gain  money  or  distinction,  I  do  not  love  knowl- 
edge for  its  own  sake  ;  that  is,  I  am  after  the  happiness  de- 
rived from  wealth  or  fame,  and  not  after  the  happiness  di- 
rectly imparted  by  knowledge  and  by  the  pursuit  of  it.  I 
love  knowledge  for  its  own  sake,  when  it  yields  me  delight 
immediately  and  independently  of  any  relation  of  it  to  an 
ulterior  end. 

founded  on  motives.     All  motives  are  included  in  the  two  kinds  of  good, 
mentioned  above." — Dwight,  Serm.  Ixxx.  (iii.,  166). 


WITH   PRIOR   NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  317 

Universal  happiness,  or  the  highest  happiness  of  the  uni- 
verse, is  one  mode  of  stating  the  object  of  a  holy  or  benevo- 
lent choice.  Isow  the  highest  happiness  of  every  individual 
is  indissolubly  linked  with  the  choice  of  this  object  and  the 
pursuit  of  it  as  the  chief  end  of  living.  That  is  to  say,  in 
the  exercise  of  this  choice  there  is  a  joy  superior  to  that  de- 
rived from  anything  else.  From  the  object  itself  and  the 
choice  of  it,  as  an  immanent,  voluntary  preference,  comes 
the  highest  happiness  of  which  the  soul  is  capable.  Benevo- 
lence is  the  choice  of  the  highest  good  of  the  universe,  in 
preference  to  everything  that  can  come  into  competition 
with  it.  But  one's  own  highest  happiness  can  never  thus 
come  into  competition  with  it.  Bather  are  the  two — one's 
own  highest  happiness  and  that  of  the  universe — in  the 
nature  of  things  inseparably  connected.  So  that  in  the 
choice  of  the  highest  good  of  the  whole,  the  choice  of  one's 
own  highest  happiness  is  blended.  Virtuous  self-love  and 
virtuous  benevolence  denote  one  and  the  same  complex  state  ; 
and  one  or  the  other  term  is  employed,  as  the  speaker  has  in 
view  one  or  the  other  of  its  relations,  viz.,  to  one's  own  high- 
est happiness  as  depending  on  the  highest  happiness  of  the 
universe,  or  to  the  highest  happiness  of  the  universe  as  pro- 
ducing his  own  highest  happiness. 

We  are  not  vindicating  Dr.  Taylor's  position,  we  are 
simply  explaining  it ;  and  without  doubt  a  great  part  of  the 
reproach  heaped  on  him  for  his  theory  on  this  subject  is  due 
to  the  mistaken  supposition  that  he  considered  benevolence, 
or  love  to  God,  a  subordinate  choice.  * 

We  may  add  that  Dr.  Taylor's  unfortunate  choice  of  the 
term  "  self-love,"  as  an  expression  of  his  doctrine,  was  partly 
owing  to  a  like  use  of  this  term  in  Dugald  Stewart's  Active 
and  Jloral  Powers.     Hopkins's  doctrine  of  disinterested  be- 

*  It  is  needless  to  add  that  Dr.  Taylor  considered  the  moral  excellence 
of  virtue — or  the  virtuousness  of  benevolence — to  consist  in  its  tendency 
to  promote  the  highest  happiness  of  the  universe.  In  this  he  agreed  with 
the  younger  Edwards  (ii.,  541),  and  with  Dwight  (Serm.  xcix.,  iii.,  439). 


318      THE  SYSTEM  OF  DE.  TAYLOR  IN  CONNECTION 

nevolence,  also,  had  led  Dwight  and  other  Anti-Hopkinsians 
to  distinguish  between  uninterested  and  disinterested,  and  to 
call  the  innocent  love  of  happiness  self-love,  in  distinction 
from  selfishness. 

It  may  serve  to  illustrate  the  comparative  impunity  from 
theological  odium  which  is  enjoyed  by  writers  on  philosophy, 
if  we  call  attention  to  the  doctrine,  on  the  topic  before  us, 
contained  in  the  recent  able  work  on  moral  science  by  Presi- 
dent Hopkins,  of  Williams  College.  This  doctrine  is  the 
same  as  that  of  Dr.  Taylor.  Dr.  Hopkins  holds  that  the  de- 
sire of  happiness  has  the  same  relation  to  the  other  desires 
as  "that  of  consciousness  to  the  several  specific  faculties  of 
cognition." 

*'  In  this  way  it  is  that  a  desire  of  good  enters  into  every  specific  form 
of  desire,  and  that,  as  consciousness  is  the  generic  form  of  cognition,  so 
the  desire  of  good  or  of  happiness  is  the  generic  form  of  all  the  desires."* 
'^A  third  peculiarity  of  moral  good  is  that  in  seeking  it  for  ourselves 
we  necessarily  promote  the  good  of  others."  "  By  some  it  has  been  held 
that  all  virtue  has  its  origin  in  a  regard  to  the  good  of  others.  The  true 
system  is  found  in  the  coincidence  of  the  two ;  and  that  becomes  possible 
only  from  the  peculiarity  of  moral  good  now  mentioned."  f  "It  has  al- 
ready been  seen  to  be  the  characteristic  of  a  rational  being  to  act  with 
reference  to  an  end.  But  an  end  can  be  sought  rationally  only  as  there 
is  in  it  an  apprehended  good,'' J  But  what  is  meant  by  a  good?  "As 
there  is,  then,  no  good  without  consciousness,  which  involves  activity,  it 
would  seem  that  the  good  must  be  found  in  the  activity  itself,  or  in  its 
results. 

But  activity  in  itself  cannot  be  a  good.  If  it  had  no  results,  it  would 
be  good  for  nothing,  and  those  results  may  be  evil  and  wretchedness,  as 
well  as  blessing. 

We  turn  then,  in  this  search,  to  the  results,  in  consciousness,  of  activ- 
ity. We  are  so  constituted  that  any  form  of  normal  activity,  physical  or 
mental,  produces  satisfaction,  enjoyment,  blessedness,  according  to  the 
faculties  that  act.  Of  these  the  conception  is  simple  and  indefinable,  ex- 
cept by  synonymous  terms."  "  We  say  then  that  in  the  satisfaction  at- 
tached by  God  to  the  normal  activity  of  our  powers,  we  find  a  good^  an 
end  that  is  wholly  for  its  own  sake.  We  say,  too,  that  it  is  only  in  and 
from  such  activity  that  we  can  have  the  notion  of  any  satisfaction,  enjoy- 

*  Love  as  a  Law,  etc.,  p.  95.  f  Ibid.,  p.  188.  X  Ibid.,  p.  199. 


WITH   PRIOR   NEW   ENGLAND    THEOLOGY.  319 

ment,  blessedness,  either  for  ourselves  or  others  ;  and  that  that  form  and 
proportion  of  activity  which  would  result  in  our  perfect  blessedness  would 
be  right."* 

This  doctrine  is  identical  with  that  of  Dr.  Taylor.  This 
agreement  does  not  extend  to  all  points  in  the  ethical  theory 
of  the  latter ;  but  on  "  self-love  "  and  its  relation  to  benevo- 
lence and  selfishness,  there  is  a  perfect  agreement. 

We  may  add  that  on  the  nature  of  moral  agency,  Presi- 
dent Hopkins  expresses  himself  in  entire  harmony  with  the 
familiar  principles  of  Dr.  Taylor.     The  former  says  : 

"  Man  is  responsible  for  his  preferences,  his  choices,  the  acts  of  his  will 
generally — for  these  and  their  results — and  for  nothing  else."  Responsi- 
bility cannot  attach  to  spontaneous  affections,  but  only  to  the  choice  of 
an  end.  ' '  There  is  a  broad  distinction  between  what  is  called,  sometimes 
an  immanent  preference,  sometimes  a  governing  purpose,  sometimes  an 
ultimate  intention,  and  those  volitions  which  are  merely  executive,  and 
prescribe  specific  acts  under  such  a  purpose."  f  "  Character  is  as  the 
governing  preference  or  purpose — it  consists  in  an  original  and  thorough 
determination  by  a  man  of  himself  with  reference  to  some  end  chosen  by 
himself  as  supreme."  X  "  The  choice  of  a  supreme  end  is  generic.  It  is 
made  once,  in  a  sense  only  once.  In  a  sense,  too,  it  is  made  always,  con- 
stantly repeated,  since  it  is  only  under  this  that  other  choices  are  made. 
It  is  like  the  light  of  consciousness,  and  would  naturally  be  the  last  thing 
investigated.  Indeed,  as  consciousness  is  the  generic  form  of  intelligence, 
and  the  desire  of  happiness  that  of  the  desires,  and  love  that  of  affec- 
tions, so  the  choice  of  a  supreme  end  is  the  generic  form  of  volition.  It 
enters  into  all  others ;  they  are  made  in  its  light  and  partake  of  its  char- 
acter." § 

These  are  familiar  propositions  in  Dr.  Taylor's  system. 
In  pointing  out  this  coincidence,  however,  we  do  not  mean 
to  detract  in  the  slighest  degree  from  the  reputation  of  Dr. 
Hopkins  as  a  fresh  and  independent  thinker. 

7.  The  exposition  of  Dr.  Taylor's  conception  of  the  ele- 
ments of  moral  agency  renders  it  easy  to  set  forth  his  view 
of  Kegeneration.     The  author  of  regeneration  is  the  Holy 

*  Love  as  a  Law,  pp.  51,  52.     See,  also,  pp.  131,  190,  191. 

t  Ibid, ,  p.  170.  t  Ibid.,  pp.  168,  169.  §  Ibid.,  p.  218. 


320  THE    SYSTEM   OF   DR.    TAYLOR   IN   CONNECTION 

Spirit.  The  change  that  takes  place  in  the  soul  is  due  to 
His  influence  so  exerted  as  to  effect  that  change  in  the  sense 
of  rendering  it  infallibly  certain.  It  is  a  change  of  charac- 
ter. It  is  the  production  of  love  to  God  as  the  supreme  ob- 
ject of  choice,  in  the  room  of  love  to  the  world.  But  the 
change  takes  place  within  the  soul ;  and  it  is  the  man  him- 
self who  repents  and  believes,  and  chooses  God  for  his  portion. 
Hence,  it  takes  place  in  the  use  of  his  natural  powers,  and  in 
conformity  with  the  laws  of  the  mind.  As  a  psychological 
change,  it  can  be  analyzed  and  described.  To  do  this  was  a 
part  of  Dr.  Taylor's  design  in  his  noted  Review  of  Spring 
on  the  "  Means  of  Regeneration."  *  He  held  that  the  at- 
tention of  a  sinner  might  be  excited  and  directed  to  his  duty, 
that  the  motives  of  the  Gospel  appeal  to  the  instinctive  de- 
sire of  happiness,  which  underlies  all  choosing,  that  impelled 
by  this  movement  of  a  part  of  his  nature  which  is  neither 
holy  or  sinful,  but  simply  constitutional,  a  sinner  could  sus- 
pend the  choice  of  the  world  as  his  chief  good,  which  forms 
the  essence  of  sinful  character,  and  could  give  his  heart  to 
God.  Dr.  Taylor  thus  draws  out  analytically  the  steps  of  a 
mental  change,  giving  them  in  the  order  of  nature  rather 
than  that  of  chronological  succession.  'Now  a  sinner  is 
naturally  able  to  make  this  revolution  in  the  ruling  princi- 
ple of  his  life.  There  is  adequate  power,  and  there  is  no  ab- 
surdity in  supposing  that  power  exerted.  But  there  is  a 
moral  inability,  which  constitutes  practically  an  insuperable 
obstacle ;  and  this  is  overcome  only  by  the  agency  of  the 
Spirit  who  moves  upon  the  powers  of  the  soul,  and  induces, 
without  coercing,  them  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of 
the  Gospel. 

8.  Dr.  Taylor's  doctrine  on  the  relation  of  the  introduc- 
tion of  sin  and  its  continuance  to  the  divine  administration, 
accords  with  the  general  spirit  of  his  theology.  Theolo- 
gians from  Calvin  to  Bellamy  had  discussed  the  question  as 

*  Christian  Spectator^  1829. 


WITH  PBIOR  NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  321 

if  there  were  only  this  alternative,  the  existence  of  sin  or 
the  prevention  of  it  by  the  poicer  of  God.  Holding  that 
God  was  able  to  exclude  sin  from  the  system,  and  knowing 
that  he  has  not  done  so,  they  proceeded  to  the  inference 
that  the  system  is  better  for  having  sin  in  it — that  the  ex- 
istence of  sin,  wherever  it  is  found,  is  better,  all  things  con- 
sidered, than  its  non-existence  would  be — that  sin  is  the 
necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good. 

In  the  first  place.  Dr.  Taylor  held  that  we  are  not  shut  up 
to  the  alternative  just  stated.  There  is  a  third  way  in 
which  sin  might  have  been  prevented,  and  that  is  by  the 
free  act  of  the  beings  who  commit  it.  To  say  that  it  was 
better  for  them  to  commit  than  to  avoid  sin,  is,  in  Dr.  Tay- 
lor's judgment,  an  unwarranted  and  false  proposition.  To 
say  that  it  is  better  for  them  to  be  permitted  to  sin,  as  they 
do,  rather  than  for  them  to  be  prevented  from  sinning  by 
such  a  positive  exertion  of  divine  power  as  would  be  requi- 
site to  effect  this  result,  is  another  and  quite  a  different 
proposition,  which  carries  with  it  no  dangerous  conse- 
quences. It  is  not  true,  then,  that  sin  is  ever  better  than 
holiness  in  its  stead  would  be,  or  that  sin,  all  things  consid- 
ered, is  a  good  thing.  But  it  may  be  true  that  the  non-pre- 
vention of  sin  by  the  act  of  God  is  in  certain  cases  better 
than  its  forcible  prevention  by  his  act. 

It  is  a  question  as  old  as  philosophy,  "Why  did  not  God 
prevent  the  occurrence  of  moral  evil  ?  Hume  revived  the  ar- 
gument of  Epicurus :  Either  God  can  prevent  it  and  will  not, 
in  which  case  he  is  not  benevolent ;  or  he  will  and  cannot, 
in  which  case  he  is  not  omnipotent ;  or  he  neither  can  nor  will, 
in  which  case  he  is  neither  omnipotent  nor  benevolent.  The 
Kew  England  theologians  and  other  Calvinistic  theologians 
had  assumed  that  he  can  prevent  sin,  and  had  sought  to 
vindicate  his  benevolence  by  assuming  that  it  is  good  that 
evil  exists.  Dr.  Taylor  took  up  the  question  in  answering 
skeptical  objections  to  the  benevolence  of  the  Creator.  The 
ground  that  he  took  in  reply  was  this,  that  it  may  be  im- 
14* 


322  THE    SYSTEM   OF   DR.    TAYLOR   IN   CONNECTION 

possible  for  sin  to  be  excluded  by  the  act  of  God  from  the 
best  possible  system.  He  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  his 
purpose,  which  was  to  ward  off  an  objection,  to  affirm  that 
it  is  thus  impossible ;  but  he  modestly  said  that  it  may  he. 
He  did  not  say  that  it  may  be  that  God  cannot  exclude  sin 
from  every  moral  system,  but  only  from  the  best — from 
that  which  will  secure  the  largest  amount  of  good  on  the 
whole.*  He  did  not  say  that  it  may  be  impossible  for  sin  to 
be  excluded  from  such  a  system ;  for  he  held  that  free 
agents  might  exclude  it  by  abstaining  from  sin.  He  only 
said  that  for"  aught  that  can  be  shown,  it  may  be  inconsis- 
tent with  the  nature  of  things  for  God,  by  His  intervention, 
to  exclude  sin  from  that  system  which  of  all  possible  sys- 
tems is  the  most  eligible  for  the  good  that  it  will  secure. 


*  [A  more  accurate  statement  would  be  that  he  did  not  deem  it  <ibso- 
lutely  essential  to  say  that  God  cannot,  etc.  That  is,  it  is  not  necessary 
to  say  this,  in  order  to  silence  the  skeptic.  Dr.  Taylor  was  in  the  habit 
of  affirming  that  it  cannot  be  proved  a  priori  that  Grod  can  prevent  sin 
in  any  moral  system.  Of  course  he  must  have  held  that  it  may  be  that 
God  cannot  do  this.  And  this  proposition  he  does  maintain  in  his  vol- 
umes on  Moral  Oov&)mment  (i.,  303  seq.,  ii.,  441  seq.). 

There  has  been  a  general  impression  that  he  held  that  there  is  no 
ground  for  tJie  opinion  that  God  can  exclude  sin  from  any  moral  system. 
But  he  distinctly  stated  to  us,  in  reply  to  an  inquiry,  that  this  impres- 
sion is  erroneous,  and  that  his  meaning  was  as  we  have  given  it  above. 
On  a  close  examination  of  the  passages  referred  to  in  the  published  Lec- 
tures, it  will  be  seen  that  he  says  nothing  inconsistent  with  this.  He 
maintains  that  it  cannot  be  demonstrated  that  God  can  exclude  sin  from 
a  moral  system, /7'o/w  the  nature  of  agency  ;  nor  can  it  be  proved  (that  is, 
demonstrated)  from  facts — since  wherever  sin  is  actually  prevented,  its 
prevention  may  he  due  to  the  system  with  which  all  the  sin  that  does  ex- 
ist is  certainly  connected. 

The  possible  incompatibility  of  the  prevention  of  sin  by  the  divine 
power,  with  the  best  system,  is  the  doctrine  on  which  he  finally  rested 
his  refutation  of  the  skeptical  objection  to  the  benevolence  of  God.  That 
is  to  say,  he  usually  discussed  the  question  with  reference  to  the  actual 
state  of  things — the  existing  system.  At  the  same  time  he  contended 
that  there  can  be  no  demonstrative  proof  that  a  moral  being  who  can  sin, 
will  not  sin,  and  hence  no  complete,  decisive  proof,  that  sin  can  be  kept 
out  of  any  moral  system  by  the  act  of  God.] 


WITH   PRIOR   NEW    ENGLAND    THEOLOGY.  323 

The  system  would  be  better  without  sin,  if  this  result  were 
secured  by  the  free  action  of  the  creatures  comprising  it, 
with  no  other  alteration  of  its  characteristics.  It  might  not 
be  so  good,  if  the  same  result  were  reached  by  divine  inter- 
vention. We  are  too  little  acquainted  with  the  relations  of 
divine  power  to  free  agency  to  declare  confidently  to  what 
extent  the  exertion  of  such  power  is  beneficial,  when  the 
universal  system  is  taken  into  view.  It  is  wiser  and  more 
modest  to  judge  of  what  is  best  by  what  we  actually  see  done. 

Dr.  Taylor  was  warmly  censured  for  abridging  the  divine 
power ;  and  this  by  theologians  who  afiirmed  that  sin  is  the 
necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good ;  that  is,  that  the  di- 
vine Being  is  shut  ujp  to  this  means  of  attaining  the  ends  of 
his  benevolence ! 

The  student  of  philosophy  will  be  at  once  reminded  of  the 
theodicy  of  Leibnitz.  This  great  writer  advocates  a  scheme 
of  optimism.  Out  of  all  ideal  systems  present  to  the  omni- 
scient mind  of  God,  he  chooses  the  best  possible ;  that  is 
the  best  that  can  be  realized  by  him,  consistently  with  the 
nature  of  things.  This  theory,  as  Leibnitz  abundantly  shows, 
involves  no  limitation  of  God's  power.*  Sin  is  not  chosen 
by  him  as  an  end  or  a  direct  means  to  an  end,  but  as  a  con- 
ditio sine  qua  non  of  the  best  system.  Interference  of  God 
to  prevent  sin  would  derange  the  system,  and  thus  produce 
more  evil  than  good.  He  can  thus  interfere,  but  not  wisely 
or  benevolently ;  and  power  in  God  is  never  dissociated  from 
wisdom  and  benevolence.  So  far,  there  is  accord  between 
the  system  of  Dr.  Taylor  and  that  of  Leibnitz.  But  we 
have  not  found  in  Leibnitz  any  consideration  of  the  hypothe- 
sis of  sin  being  excluded  from  the  existing  system  by  the  free 
choice  of  the  creature,  nor  any  discussion  of  the  question 

*  "  Adseutior  principio  Baelii,  quod  etiam  meum  est,  omne,  quod  con- 
tradictionem  non  iraplicat,  esse  possibile."  224.  He  says  that  his  theory- 
no  more  abridges  the  divine  power  than  does  the  assertion  that  God  can- 
not draw  a  shorter  than  a  straight  line  between  two  points.  Among  nu- 
merous passages  to  the  same  effect,  see  130,  158,  165,  216  (ed.  Dutens). 


324:  THE    SYSTEM   OF   DE.    TAYLOE   IN   CONNECTION 

whether,  supposing  this  hypothesis  realized,  the  system 
would  not  be  better  for  the  change.  And  in  assigning  the 
reasons  why  divine  interference  to  exclude  sin  would  be  un- 
wise, Leibnitz  mingles  two  very  diverse  grounds.  He  con- 
nects the  possibility  of  sin  with  the  large  spiiitual  endow- 
ments of  moral  creatures ;  but  he  also  speaks  of  sin  as  af- 
fording a  beneficial  contrast  with  virtue,  and  thus  indirectly 
contributing  to  the  beauty  and  harmony  of  the  whole  system. 
He  compares  moral  evil  in  the  system  to  the  shading  in  a 
picture,  which  is  essential  to  its  proper  effect  and  highest 
beauty.  This  is  the  old  principle  of  the  need  of  variety,  to 
which  the  schoolmen  appealed.  In  passages,  he  even  verges 
on  the  theory  of  the  necessity  of  sin,  as  well  as  of  its  possi- 
bility, in  consequence  of  the  metaphysical  imperfection,  or 
finite  constitution  of  the  beings  who  fall  into  sin.  But  this 
last  doctrine  is  at  war  with  his  prevailing  view.  It  would 
seem,  therefore,  that  the  Is^ew  Haven  divines  carried  the 
general  theory  on  which  the  masterly  work  of  Leibnitz  is 
constructed,  a  single  step,  but  a  very  important  step,  beyond 
him.  Their  discussions,  however,  were  not  at  all  connected 
with  his  speculations,  but  were  a  growth  upon  the  preceding 
Kew  England  discussions  of  the  same  high  themes.* 

*  A  theory  respecting  the  permission  of  sin,  identical  with  that  of  the 
New  Haven  divines,  is  suggested  in  one  or  two  passages  of  Thomas 
Aquinas,  but  is  not  consistently  carried  out.  He  says :  *'  Sicut  igitur 
perfectio  universitatis  rerum  requirit,  ut  non  solum  sint  entia  incorrupti- 
bilia  sed  etiam  corruptibilia  :  ita  perfectio  universi  requirit  ut  sint  quaB- 
dam  qugB  bonitate  deficere  possint,  ad  quod  sequitur  ea  interdum  deficere." 
"  Ipsum  autem  totum  quod  est  universitas  creaturarum  melius  et  perfec- 
tius  est,  si  in  eo  sint  qusedam  quge  a  bono  deficere  possunt ;  qu£e  interdum 
deficiunt,  Deo  hoc  non  impediente."  Summa,  I.,  ii.,  xlviii. ,  A.  ii.  But 
Aquinas  goes  on  immediately  to  argue  that  much  good  would  be  lost,  if 
it  were  not  for  sin  ;  for  example,  that  there  would  be  no  vindicative  jus- 
tice and  no  patience,  if  there  were  no  sin.  He  takes  refuge  in  the  doc- 
trine that  sin  is  merely  privaLive,  like  blindness  in  the  eye,  and  so,  being 
nothing^  has  not  G-od  for  its  author  !  Another  passage,  still  more  plainly 
suggesting  the  main  idea  of  the  New  Haven  theory,  has  been  cited  from 
Aquinas's  Com.  in  Pet.  Lomb.  (I.,  i.,  Dist.  39,  Q.  3,  A.  2.)  But  this  work 
we  have  not  now  at  hand. 


WITH  PRIOR  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY.         325 

9.  Dr.  Taylor's  conception  of  election  is  conformed  to  his 
doctrine  respecting  the  divine  permission  of  sin.  Regenera- 
tion is  the  act  of  God.  Since  the  renewal  of  the  soul  is  his 
work,  he  must  have  purposed  beforehand  to  do  it.  He  has 
determined  to  exert  such  a  degree  of  influence  upon  a  cer- 
tain part  of  the  race  who  are  sinful  by  their  own  act,  and 
justly  condemned,  as  will  result  with  infallible  certainty  in 
their  conversion.  He  is  not  bound  to  give  such  influence  in 
equal  measure  to  all.  Rather  does  he  establish  a  system  of 
influence  which  his  omniscient  mind  foresees  to  be  most  pro- 
ductive of  holiness  in  his  kingdom  as  a  whole.  It  is  not  the 
act  or  merit  of  individuals  that  earns  or  procures  this  effec- 
tual influence,  but  that  large  expediency  which  has  respect 
to  the  entire  kingdom  and  the  holiness  to  be  produced  with- 
in it. 

Election  is  a  part  of  a  vast  and  complex  system  of  admin- 
istration, extending  over  a  universe  of  intelligent  beings. 
The  material^  so  to  speak,  to  be  dealt  with  in  this  moral 
kingdom,  is  free  agency ;  just  as  matter  is  the  material  in  the 
outward  kingdom  of  nature.  To  what  extent  it  is  desirable 
to  exert  power  to  control  the  actions  of  free  agents  at  any 
given  time  or  place,  only  the  omniscient  mind,  who  surveys 
the  whole  system  and  knows  its  laws,  can  judge.  When, 
where,  and  to  what  extent,  it  is  desirable  to  exert  the  extra- 
ordinary influence  of  his  Spirit  to  regenerate  and  sanctify 
souls.  He  alone  can  determine.  He  organizes  a  plan,  not  in 
an  arbitrary  way,  but  in  order  to  secure  the  best  results  that 
are  attainable  consistently  with  the  wise  and  benevolent  laws 
that  underlie  his  whole  administration.  Under  the  opera- 
tion of  this  plan,  the  Gospel  call  goes  to  one  land  sooner 
than  another.  Antioch  hears  the  good  news  at  once  ;  other 
cities  and  countries  must  wait  for  ages.  Not  that  God  loves 
Antioch  better  than  the  cities  of  Eastern  Asia  ;  but  his  ben- 
eficent plan  involves  this  selection  of  Antioch.  So  of  indi- 
viduals. The  system  of  influence  is  adapted  to  sweep  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  a  certain  number,  and  those  alone ; 


326  THE    SYSTEM    OF    DR.    TAYLOR   IN    CONNECTION 

not  from  any  partiality  to  them,  not  because  they  deserve 
more  than  others,  but  because  the  system  that  secures  their 
salvation  is  the  wisest  and  most  beneficent.  The  effectual 
call  is  addressed,  for  example,  to  Paul,  not  because  he  has 
claims  superior  to  those  of  his  associates  in  travel,  but  be- 
cause the  same  benevolent  plan  involves  his  conversion.  His 
conversion  vras  purposed,  as  the  certain  futurition  of  the 
event  was  secured  by  the  plan. 

Dr.  Taylor  believed  that  his  doctrines,  on  the  points  con- 
sidered under  this  and  the  preceding  head,  must  be  admitted 
in  order  to  give  their  full,  natural  sense  to  the  numerous  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  in  which  the  unwillingness  of  God  that 
sinners  should  continue  impenitent,  and  his  earnest  desire 
that  they  should  turn  to  him  and  be  saved,  are  emphatically 
expressed.  Theology  was  embarrassed  by  the  supposition  of 
two  contrary  wills  in  the  divine  Being,  both  having  respect 
to  the  same  object,  namely,  the  repentance  of  the  sinner. 
There  was  a  difficulty  in  reconciling  the  merciful  declara- 
tions and  invitations  of  the  Bible,  with  an  unwillingness, 
all  things  considered,  on  the  part  of  their  Author  that  the 
latter  should  be  complied  with.  Can  he  sincerely  say  that 
he  prefers  all  men  to  abandon  sin,  if,  on  the  whole,  he  pre- 
fers that  they  should  not  ?  The  old  Protestant  theologians 
adopted  the  distinction  of  the  revealed  and  secret  will  of 
God,  which  had  come  down  from  the  Schoolmen — the  vol- 
untas signi  and  the  voluntas  henejplaeiti,  Calvin  was  too 
fair-minded  an  exegete  -not  to  betray  his  perplexity  in  the 
presence  of  some  of  the  passages  to  which  we  have  referred. 
Thus,  in  his  comment  on  Matthew  xxiii.  27  (the  Saviour's 
lament  over  Jerusalem),  he  says  of  the  will  of  Jesus  to  gath- 
er its  inhabitants  to  himself,  that  it  is  the  will  of  God  ex 
verbi  natura — that  is,  the  revealed  will.  Yet,  he  adds,  the 
will  of  God  is  one  and  simple,  and  the  representation  of  it 
as  twofold  is  anthropopathic.  He  admits  that  God  wills  to 
gather  all.  Standing  face  to  face  with  the  "  Iwould^''  "  hut 
ye  would  not,^^  he  says :  "  est  autem  inter  velle  Dei  et  ipso- 


WITH  PRIOR  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY.         327 

rum  nolle  emphatica  oppositio."  Tlie  secret  will  of  God  is 
to  him  an  ineffable,  unfathomable  mystery.  On  this  sub- 
ject he  says  that  nothing  is  better  than  a  learned  ignorance. 
Dr.  Taylor  considered  that  all  this  perplexity  is  removed, 
and  full  credit  given  to  the  universal  offers  of  grace  and  invi- 
tations of  mercy,  if  it  is  only  understood  that  while  God  pre- 
fers that  every  one  should  repent  under  the  recovering  influ- 
ences to  which  he  is  subject.  He  at  the  same  time  cannot 
wisely  alter  this  system  of  influences ;  and  rather  than  do 
this,  he  prefers  that  the  sinner  should  perish.*  In  itself  con- 
sidered, and  all  things  considered.  He  prefers  his  repentance 
to  his  continued  and  fatal  impenitence ;  but  He  prefers  the 
latter — that  is.  He  prefers  to  permit  the  latter — sooner  than 
to  do  more  than  He  is  doing  (which  is  all  that  He  wisely 
can  do)  for  his  conversion.  Christ  most  earnestly  desired 
that  the  inhabitants  of   Jerusalem  should  receive  him  and 

*  In  harmony  with  Dr.  Taylor's  ideas  on  this  subject  is  the  letter  (to 
Boyle)  of  John  Howe,  the  great  Puritan  divine,  on  The  Reconcileahleness  of 
God's  Fresdence  of  the  Sins  of  Men  with  the  Wisdom  and  Sincerity  of  His 
Counsels,  Exhortations,  and  whatsoever  Means  He  uses  to  Preifent  Them. 
Howe  dislikes  the  contrasted  terms  secret  will  and  revealed  will.  •  *  The  truth 
is,"  he  says,  "  that  God  doth  really  and  complacentially  will  (and  therefore 
doth  with  most  unexceptionable  sincerity  declare  himself  to  will)  that  to 
be  done  and  enjoyed  by  many  men,  which  he  doth  not,  universally,  will  to 
make  them  do,  or  irresistibly  procure  that  they  shall  enjoy."  "  Methinks 
it  should  not  be  difficult  for  us  to  acknowledge  that  God  doth  truly,  and 
with  complacency,  will  whatsoever  is  the  holy,  righteous  matter  of  his 
own  laws."  That  he  does  not  actually  procure  the  obedience  of  all,  "is 
upon  so  much  more  valuable  reasons,  as  that,  not  to  do  it  was  more  eligi- 
ble, with  the  higher  complacency  of  a  determinative  will."  Although  he 
foresees  that  many  will  not  be  moved  by  his  exhortations,  promises,  and 
threats,  but  persist  in  sin,  "  he  at  the  same  time  sees  that  they  might  do 
otherwise,  and  that  if  they  would  comply  with  his  methods,  things  would 
otherwise  issue  with  them."  "  For  they  do  it  not  because  he  foreknew 
it,  but  he  only  foreknew  it  because  they  would  do  so."  That  he  does 
not  reclaim  them  from  sin  "  proceeds  not  from  the  imperfection  of  his 
power,  but  from  the  concurrence  of  all  other  perfections  in  him."  "His 
wisdom  doth  as  much  limit  the  exercise  of  his  power,  as  his  righteousness 
or  his  truth  doth."  See,  also,  Howe  on  The  Redeemer's  Tears  Wept  over 
Lost  Souls,  where  are  sentiments  to  the  same  effect 


328      THE  SrSTEM  OF  DR.  TAYLOR  IN  CONNECTION 

be  saved.  "  How  often  would  I  .  .  .  .  but  ye  would  not." 
But  he  preferred  to  leave  tliem  to  that  dreadful  lot  which 
they  were  bringing  on  themselves,  rather  than  to  bring  a  dif- 
ferent kind,  or  an  increased  amount  of  influence  to  recover 
them.  There  is  no  contradiction  in  his  will,  for  the  objects 
of  choice  in  the  two  cases  are  different.* 

Under  the  New  Haven  theory,  there  is  room  not  only  for 
the  hardening  of  heart  under  a  law  of  character,  which  is 
certain  in  its  operation,  but  also  for  the  judicial  withdrawal 
of  the  influences  of  grace,  on  which  all  hope  depends. 

How  earnestly  Dr.  Taylor  upheld  the  doctrine  of  Special 
Grace,  and  of  sovereignty  in  the  bestowal  of  it,  may  be 
learned  from  the  following  extracts  from  his  Review  of 
Spring  on  "  The  Means  of  Regeneration  "  ; — 

"  According  to  the  principle  which  we  have  advanced,  there  is  no 
ground  of  certainty  that  the  renewing  grace,  or  the  grace  which  secures 
the  performance,  w'dl  attend  any  call  to  duty,  addressed  to  any  individual 
sinner.  Here,  as  we  shall  now  attempt  to  show,  lies  the  practical  power 
of  the  doctrine  of  dependence,  viz. ,  in  the  fearful  uncertainty,  which  it 
imparts  to  the  great  question  of  the  sinner's  regeneration."  This  doc- 
trine ' '  was  taught  with  great  plainness,  and  pressed  in  all  its  pungency, 
and  all  its  mysteriousness,  upon  the  wondering  Nicodemus  by  the  Saviour 
himself."  "  Why  is  the  high  and  uncontrollable  sovereignty  of  God  in 
the  gifts  of  his  grace,  so  clearly  announced  and  so  formally  and  trium- 

*  It  would  seem  to  be  felt  by  many  opponents  of  Dr.  Taylor  that  the 
very  supposition  of  a  successful  withstanding  of  the  Spirit  of  God  by  the 
human  will  cannot  be  entertained  without  impiety.  But  they  must  read 
their  New  Testaments  with  little  attention,  or  they  would  not  argue  in 
this  strain,  "  Ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost,"  says  Peter  (Acts  viii. 
51) ;  where  the  word  for  resist  {avTimirroa)  in  its  primary  import  signifies 
*'  to  fall  upon,"— as  an  enemy.  There  is  an  exertion  of  the  Spirit,  a  real 
exertion,  which  yet  does  not  prevail  over  the  will.  Only  a  perfectly  so- 
phistical exegesis  can  shut  this  fact  out  of  the  New  Testament.  Granted, 
that  in  the  case  of  the  elect,  grace  is  effectual,  unresivsted — is  of  a  kind 
and  degree  to  secure  the  f  uturition  of  the  event.  This  does  not  affect  the 
truth  stated  before.  "  Grieve  not  the  Spirit,"  writes  Paul  (Eph.  iv.  30) ; 
representing  the  Spirit  in  the  light  of  a  loving  friend,  who  is  troubled  or 
hurt  by  neglect  and  opposition.  How  different  is  this  conception  of  the 
Spirit's  influence  from  that  which  makes  it  a  mere  exertion  of  power  ! 


WITH  PRIOR  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY.         329 

phantly  defended  against  the  murmurings  of  the  ungodly?  "  "  Have  we 
no  evidence  that  this  is  an  unwelcome  truth,  and  unwelcome  because  it 
is  terrible,  and  terrible  because  it  shows  man's  eternal  destiny  to  depend 
on  the  unknown  counsels  of  an  offended  God  ?  "  ""  What  is  better  fitted 
to  confirm  this  confidence  " — the  delusive  confidence  of  the  sinner  that 
he  shall  escape  future  misery— ''than  the  assurance,  or  even  a  high 
probability,  that  the  grace  of  God  is,  and  ever  will  be,  ready  to  renew 
the  heart."  "  They  believe  in  their  dependence  on  God  ;  but  they  also 
believe  that  the  necessary  grace  is,  and  will  be,  ready  for  their  use,  when 
they  shall  be  ready  to  use  it.  This  is  the  grand  opiate  of  the  adversary 
by  which  he  holds  enthralled  multitudes,  under  the  light  of  salvation,  in 
their  guilty  sleep  of  moral  death."  But  "  his  salvation,  by  his  own  per- 
verseness,  is  forfeited  into  the  hands  of  a  sovereign  and  offended  God. 
Point  then  the  thoughtless  man  to  God's  high  counsels,  and  show  him 
that  God  will  save  or  destroy,  '  as  seemeth  good  in  his  sight.'"  "Ac- 
cording to  the  principles  which  we  have  advanced,  the  gift  of  renewing 
grace  cannot  be  inferred  from  the  nature,  tendency,  or  relations  of  any 
prior  acts  of  the  sinner.  It  cannot  be  inferred  from  any  divine  promise, 
but  is  thrown  into  fearful  uncertainty  by  the  divine  tbreatenings." 
"  Whether,  therefore,  this  blessing  be  given  or  withheld  iy  respect  to  in- 
dividual sinners,  is  an  inquiry  which,  according  to  the  views  we  have 
maintained  in  the  previous  discussion,  as  well  as  according  to  the  scrip- 
tural doctrine  of  dependence,  must  be  left  with  the  sovereignty  of  God, 
whose  secret  counsels  no  eye  can  penetrate."  * 

"Now,  we  ask  any  candid  person  who  knows  enough  about 
the  subject  to  form  an  intelligent  judgment,  if  the  system 
which  we  have  sketched  above,  is  Pelagian.  The  Pelagian 
system  is  a  tolerably  coherent  one,  and  is  well  imderstood. 
Underlying  Pelagianism,  is  the  assumption  that  an  act  of 
sin  has  little  or  no  tendency  to  self -perpetuation.  It  may 
be  repeated,  or  may  not,  but  it  does  not,  of  course,  result  in 
a  character — a  permanently  sinful  state  of  the  will.  In 
fact,  there  is  no  character  in  the  sense  of  a  single,  central, 
all-governing  principle,  at  the  root  of  special  virtues  or 
special  forms  of  sin.  Hence  there  is  rather  a  graduation 
from  the  worst  to  the  best  men,  than  a  radical  difference 
between  the  good  and  evil.  Consistently  with  this  funda- 
mental assumption  is  the  doctrine  that  Adam's  sin  did  not 

*  Christian  Spectator^  1829,  pp.  706,  708,  710. 


330  THE    SYSTEM   OF   DR.    TAYLOR   IN   CONNECTION 

affect  his  posterity,  except  in  tlie  way  of  example — an  ex- 
ample which  is  not  universally  followed.  There  have  been 
sinless  men,  many  of  whom  can  be  named.  The  world  grew 
worse,  but  this  was  owing  to  the  multiplying  of  evil  exam- 
ples and  the  power  of  education.  But  the  virtues  of  the 
heathen  are  such  as  to  entitle  them  to  reward.  The  Re- 
vealed Law  was  given  as  a  moral  influence  to  deter  men 
from  committing  sin ;  the  Gospel  was  added  as  an  additional 
influence  tending  to  the  same  end.  Men  need  grace,  but 
grace  in  the  view  of  the  Pelagian  leaders,  principally,  if  not 
exclusively,  consists  in  the  giving  of  truth,  precepts,  admoni- 
tions, and  the  like ;  not  in  an  inward  operation  of  the 
Spirit.  Free-will  itself,  with  the  other  native  powers  of  the 
mind,  is  reckoned  under  the  term  grace.  There  are  two 
states  of  blessedness,  corresponding  to  the  lower  and  higher 
type  of  salvable  character,  the  vita  sterna  and  regnum  coelo- 
7mm.  This  is  in  keeping  with  the  legal  spirit  and  quantita- 
tive estimate  of  excellence,  that  characterize  Pelagianism.* 


*  For  the  correctness  of  this  statement  of  the  tenets  of  the  Pelagians, 
we  only  need  refer  to  the  ordinary  histories  of  doctrine.  We  here  call 
special  attention  to  two  particulars,  viz.,  the  Pelagian  conception  of  grace^ 
which  excludes  the  operation  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  '•'•  atomical  view^^  of 
character.  1,  After  Pelagius  was  acquitted  at  Diospolis,  Augustine  at- 
tached no  blame  to  the  bishops,  but  considered  that  they  had  been  misled 
by  ambiguities  ;  and  he  expressly  says  that  Pelagius  really  resolved  grace 
into  law  and  teaching.  "  Quid  manifestius,  nihil  aliud  eumdicere  gratiam, 
qua  Deus  in  nobis  operatur  velle  quod  bonum  est,  quam  legem  atque  doc- 
trinam."  Be  Grat.  Christ,  x.  See,  also,  De  Gest.  Pel.  x.,  De  Umr.,  88. 
Whether  Augustine  was  altogether  right  in  his  interpretation  of  Pelagius, 
is  for  the  present  purpose  immaterial.  What  was  condemned  as  Pelagian- 
ism  was  the  doctrine  thus  ascribed  to  him.  2.  It  is  the  well-known  phil- 
osophy of  Pelagianism  that  an  act  of  sin  does  not  result  in  a  sinful  charac- 
ter. The  act  passes  by  and  leaves  the  will  in  equilihrio.  We  are  aware 
of  what  Pelagius  says  {Ad.  Demetriad.,  8)  respecting  the  "  longa  consue- 
tude vitiorum"  and  its  corrupting  influence.  Niedner  infers  that  he 
must  have  differed  from  Coelestius  and  Julian  on  this  point,  and  have 
been  less  a  Pelagian  than  they.  But  "  the  custom"  of  sinning  is  a  vague 
conception  in  Pelagius.  "  Pelagius  and  Julian,"  says  Julius  Miiller 
{Lehre.  v.,  d.   SUnde,  ii.,  50),  "content  themselves  here  with  a  notion 


WITH    PRIOR   NEW   ENGLAND    THEOLOGY.  331 

Kow,  there  is  not  one  of  these  essential  tenets  of  the 
Pelagians  which  Dr.  Taylor  does  not  deny.  Vital  points  of 
their  system,  as,  for  example,  their  superficial  notion  of 
character  and  of  what  is  morally  excellent  and  acceptable  to 
God,  Dr.  Taylor  was  most  earnest  in  opposing.  He  spared 
no  effort  to  inculcate  a  profounder  view  of  the  essence  of 
character  and  to  show  that  so-called  virtuous  acts  or  virtuous 
habits,  when  they  do  not  emanate  from  love  to  God,  are 
destitute  of  that  quality  of  holiness  which  alone  meets  with 
his  approbation.  That  true  excellence  consists  in  a  conge- 
ries of  virtues  is  a  proposition  which  he  continually  com- 
bated. 

In  fact,  the  great  aim  of  Dr.  Taylor  was  to  answer  Pela- 
gian objections  and  to  maintain  the  substantial,  practical 
features  of  Calvinism  against  them.  This  he  supposed  him- 
self able  to  do  by  showing  that  the  power  of  contrary  choice 
which  they  claimed  as  an  inherent  attribute  of  the  will,  and 
a  condition  of  moral  responsibility,  involves  no  such  conclu- 
sions as  they  drew  from  it.  So  far  from  this.  Dr.  Taylor  in- 
sisted that  one  act  of  sin  carries  with  it,  uniformly  and  infalli- 
bly, an  established  principle  of  sin,  which  nothing  but  the 
inward  operation  of  the  Spirit  of  God  will  ever  overcome. 
The  Pelagians,  with  their  power  to  the  contrary,  had  seized 
on  a  half-truth,  and  thus  fallen  into  gross  error.  Men  may 
hold  that  the  power  to  the  contrary  involves  the  Pelagian 

which,  had  they  gone  deeper  into  its  nature  and  scope,  would  have  suf- 
ficed to  disturb  their  confidence  in  their  doctrine  of  freedom  ;  but  which, 
as  it  was  taken  up  by  them  unwillingly  and  in  an  external  and  superficial 
way,  was  necessarily  without  any  deep  influence  on  their  system." 
'•  The  single  act,"  adds  Miiller,  "  is  thought  of  as  completely  isolated. 
There  is  no  insight  into  the  law,  according  to  which  it  must  bring  forth 
a  moral  state,"  etc.  Exactly  what  Pelagius  believed,  it  may  not  be 
easy,  on  all  points,  to  determine.  The  question  is,  what  was  the  under- 
standing of  his  doctrine — what  was  the  Pelagianism  which  was  con- 
demned. That  the  Gospel  only  renders  less  difficult  what  was  not  only 
possible  but  practicable  to  be  accomplished  by  human  agency  without  it, 
was  unquestionably  the  teaching  of  the  Pelagian  leaders. 


332  THE    SYSTEM   OF   DK.    TAYLOR   IN    CONNECTION 

notion  of  the  mutableness  of  character  ;  but  Dr.  Taylor  does 
not  admit  this,  and  they  have  no  moral  right  to  charge  upon 
him  an  inference  of  their  own  which  he  spent  half  of  his 
life  in  confuting. 

Pelagianism  is  a  superficial  philosophy,  taking  no  earnest 
account  of  the  self -propagating  power  of  sin ;  acceptable 
sometimes  to  acute,  but  never  to  deep- thinking  minds ;  making 
so  little  of  the  need  of  redemption  as  to  threaten  the  founda- 
tions of  the  Gospel  system.  Such  was  not  the  spirit  of  the 
New  Haven  theology. 

Having  stated  in  general  Dr.  Hodge's  unfair  representa- 
tion of  Dr.  Taylor's  theology,  we  specify  some  particulars. 

1.  Dr.  Hodge  gives  great  prominence  to  Dr.  Taylor's  doc- 
trine of  Natural  Ability,  but  scarcely  mentions  his  doctrine 
of  Moral  Inability.  An  ordinary  reader  of  his  Article 
would  hardly  be  aware  that  Dr.  Taylor  held  this  last  doc- 
trine. That  it  had  any  importance  in  his  system,  such  read- 
ers would  never  dream.  In  the  July  number  of  the  Prince- 
ton Remew^'^  Dr.  Hodge  expressly  ascribes  to  Dr.  Taylor 
the  doctrine  that  "  absolute  certainty  is  inconsistent  with 
free  agency  " — a  proposition  which  Dr.  Taylor  constantly 
denied  and  incessantly  opposed. 

In  the  Article  under  consideration,  Dr.  Hodge  expatiates 
(pp.  62,  63,  64)  on  Dr.  Taylor's  "  Pelagian  doctrine "  of 
plenary  ability,  involving  the  power  of  contrary  choice,  and 
then  dwells  on  four  corollaries  from  this  doctrine,  which  he 
also  attributes  to  Dr.  Taylor.  Under  the  second  of  these 
corollaries,  he  does  admit  that  Dr.  Taylor  held  to  moral  in- 
ability ;  but  he  alludes  to  this  doctrine  as  if  it  were  of 
slight  consequence  in  weighing  the  orthodoxy  of  Dr.  Tay- 
lor's system.  "  It  is  true,"  he  says,  "  that  Dr.  Taylor  ad- 
mits that  men  are  depraved  by  nature ;  that  is,  that  such  is 
their  nature  that   they  will  certainly   sin.     But  this  was 


*  Pp.  517,  518.    As  the  incorrect  statements  on  these  pages  are  repeated 
in  the  later  Article,  we  have  no  occasion  to  say  more  respecting  them. 


WITH   PEIOE   NEW    ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  333 

admitted  by  Pelagius,  except  in  a  case  here  and  there 
among  millions."  *  We  do  not  know  what  authority  there 
is  for  this  last  statement.  But  we  do  know  that  Pelagius  did 
not  hold  the  doctrine  of  moral  inability  as  President  Ed- 
wards, and  Dr.  Taylor  with  him,  held  .it.  Dr.  Hodge 
speaks  of  Pelagius  and  Dr.  Taylor  as  separated  on  this 
great  point  by  "  a  shadowy  difference."  f  He  can  prove  the 
same  thing  just  as  well  and  no  better  of  President  Edwards. 
Dr.  Hodge  says,  X  that  Christians,  and  especially  Calvinists, 
have  maintained  that  "  God  commands  what  man  cannot 
perform  ; "  "  that  man  by  the  fall  lost  all  ability  of  will  to 
anything  spiritually  good  ; "  and  he  contrasts  these  proposi- 
tions with  Dr.  Taylors  denial  of  them.  But  President  Ed- 
wards denies  these  same  propositions,  in  what  he  considers 
the  proper  sense  of  their  terms,  and  holds  that  men  are  en- 
dowed "  with  the  utmost  liberty  that  can  be  desired,  or  that 
can  possibly  exist  or  be  conceived  of."  It  is  President  Ed- 
wards's doctrine  of  moral  inability  that  saves  his  essential 
Calvinism  ;  and  on  this  subject  Dr.  Taylor  agrees  with  him. 
They  both  held  that  the  sinner's  unwillingness  to  repent  is 
the  sole  dbstaxile  in  the  way  of  his  salvation,  and  is  such  an 
ohstade  that  nothing  hut  regenerating  grace  will  ever  remove 
it.  President  Edwards  rested  man's  need  of  grace  on  this 
certainty  alone,  and  so  did  Dr.  Taylor. 

2.  Dr.  Taylor  did  not  hold,  as  Dr.  Hodge  represents  that 
he  did,  that  God  "  cannot  prevent  sin,  or  the  present  amount 
of  sin,  in  a  moral  system."  He  taught,  as  we  have  ex- 
plained above,  that  it  may  he  (for  aught  that  can  be  shown 
to  the  contrary)  that  God  cannot  prevent  sin  in  the  hest 
moral  system.  He  said  in  the  Condo  ad  Clerum  that  it 
cannot  he  proved — that  is,  proved  ajpriori,  or  demonstrated 
— that  God  can  prevent  sin  in  a  moral  system.  This  was 
the  sense  in  which  he  used  the  term  proved,  as  he  himself 
explained.     He  held  that  it  can  be  proved  by  probable  reas- 

♦  Princetcm  Renew,  Jan.,  1868,  p.  67.      \  Ibid.,  p.  64.     %  Ibid.,  p.  64. 


334:  THE    SYSTEM   OF   DR.    TAYLOR   IN   CONNECTION 

oning  that  God  can  prevent  sin  in  a  moral  system.  Hence 
the  unqualified  proposition  that  "God  cannot  effectually 
control  free  agents,  without  destroying  their  nature,"  is  in- 
correctly ascribed  to  the  Is^ew  Haven  divines  by  Dr. 
Hodge.* 

3.  Dr.  Hodge  reiterates  the  utterly  erroneous  statement 
that,  according  to  Dr.  Taylor,  God  "  brings  all  the  influence 
that  he  can  to  secure  the  conversion  of  every  man."  f  He 
represents  him  as  holding  that  "  a  free  agent  can,  and  multi- 
tudes do,  effectually  resist  the  utmost  efforts  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  to  secure 'their  salvation"  (p.  71);  "that  God  does 
all  he  can  to  convert  every  man,  and  elects  those  whom  he . 
succeeds  in  inducing  to  repent "  (p.  74) ;  that  "  He  does  all 
he  can  to  convert  every  sinner,  consistent  with  his  moral 
agency  (p.  76)."  Dr.  Taylor  did  not  hold  the  doctrine  that 
is  here  attributed  to  him.  Dr.  Taylor  says,  illustrating  the 
feeling  and  action  of  God,  by  reference  to  a  human  father : 
"  it  by  no  means  follows  that  he  will,  or  that  he  ought  to, 
do  all  that  he  can,  and  all  that  may  be  necessary,  to  secure 
the  return  of  the  prodigal."  :j:  Dr.  Hodge  himself,  in 
another  place,  presents  Dr.  Taylor's  real  view  in  a  quotation 
from  the  Spectator,  w^here  it  is  said  of  God  that  he  "  brings 
all  those  kinds,  and  all  that  degree  of  moral  influence  in 
favor  of  it  \i„  e.,  the  sinner's  compliance  with  the  Gospel  in- 
vitation], which  a  system  of  measures  best  arranged  for  the 
success  of  grace  in  a  world  of  rebellion  allows."  Can  Dr. 
Hodge  fail  to  see  the  difference  between  this  proposition 
and  the  one  he  imputes  to  Dr.  Taylor  ?  Among  the  various 
conjectural  reasons  which  the  latter  gives  why  God  sancti- 
fies a  part  and  not  the  whole,  one  is  that  those  elected  "  may 
be  more  useful  than  others  for  promoting  his  designs."  § 
"  The  general  interest,  the  public  good,  may  forbid  that  he 
should  do  any  more  than  he  does  for  the  lost  sinner." ||     Dr. 


*  p.  71.  t  P-  71.  X  Revealed  Theology,  p.  378. 

§  Ibid.,  p.  417.  \  Ibid.,  p.  418. 


WITH   PEIOR   NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  336 

Taylor  states  his  doctrine  in  these  words :  "  God  does  all 
that  he  can  wisely  to  bring  every  sinner  to  repentance."  * 
Would  Dr.  Hodge  deny  this  ?  Would  he  say  that  God  does 
not  do  all  he  can  wisely  to  bring  every  man  to  repentance  ? 

Dr.  Hodge  (on  p.  73)  endeavors  to  fasten  on  the  ^N^ew 
Haven  theology  the  doctrine  of  scientia  viedia^  as  it  was 
held  by  Jesuit  theologians.  "This  distinction,"  he  says, 
"  was  introduced  with  the  conscious  and  avowed  intention  of 
getting  rid  of  the  Augustinian  doctrine,  held  by  the  Jansen- 
ists,  of  predestination  and  sovereign  election."  Molina,  who 
first  gave  notoriety  to  this  distinction,  died  in  1600,  when 
Jansenius  was  only  fifteen  years  old ;  and  his  avowed  motive 
in  introducing  it  was  to  recoTicile  the  Augustinian  and  semi- 
Pelagian  view.  But  this  is  unimportant ;  it  is  true  that  the 
Molinist  theory  was  warmly  debated  by  the  Jansenists  and 
their  opponents.  Dr.  Hodge  proceeds  to  define  the  scientia 
media,  in  its  bearing  on  election  :  "  God  foresees  who  will, 
and  who  will  not,  submit  to  tho  plan  of  salvation.  Those 
whom  he  foresees  will  submit,  he  elects  to  eternal  life  ;  those 
whom  he  foresees  will  not  submit,  he  predestinates  to  eternal 
death.  The  New  Haven  divines  adopt  the  same  distinction, 
and  apply  it  to  the  same  purpose."  Dr.  Hodge  then  quotes 
a  paragraph  from  Dr.  Fitch,  in  the  Christian  Spectator,  1831, 
in  which  it  is  said,  "  it  was  to  he  believers,  and  not  a^  be- 
lievers, that  he  chose  them  under  the  guidance  of  his  (scien- 
tia media)  foreknowledge." 

Dr.  Hodge  has  mistaken  Dr.  Fitch's  position.  Dr.  Fitch 
introduces  the  term  scientia  media  in  replying  f  to  the  ob- 
jection  of  Dr.  Fisk,  that  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  makes  God 
form  his  decrees  blindly — without  knowledge— by -an  imin- 
telligent  act  of  will.  Dr.  Fitch  replies  that  God  consults 
his  omniscience  in  forming  his  decrees.  He  knows  what 
free  agents,  under  given  circumstances,  will  voluntarily  do. 


*  Remaled  Theology^  p.  378.  See,  also,  infra,  p.  327. 
f  Christian  Spectator,  1831,  p.  609. 


336  THE   SYSTEM   OF    DE.    TAYLOR   IN   CONNECTION 

But  Dr.  Fitch  holds  that  in  the  case  of  the  elect,  it  is  God 
who  by  his  grace  produces  their  repentance  and  faith,  and 
that  he  purposed  to  do  this.  There  is  not  only  foresight  on 
his  part,  but  a  distinct  purpose  to  secure  the  result,  and  a 
providing  of  means  to  this  end.  And  there  is  an  inherent 
efficacy  in  the  means  to  secure  the  end.  He  does  not  fore- 
see the  end  independently  of  the  means ;  yet  both  end  and 
means  are  predetermined. 

This  is  a  different  theory  from  that  of  the  Molinists  and 
the  Arminians.  According  to  both,  "  sufficient  grace  "  is 
given  to  all,  and  it  is  called  "efficacious"  or  effectual,  in  the 
cases  where  it  is  complied  with.  That  is,  it  is  called  effica- 
cious, only  ex  eventu.  God  decrees  that  all  who  he  foresees 
will  believe  shall  be  saved ;  but  their  faith  results  from  no 
special  measures  on  his  part.  It  is  the  object  of  a  2^^'^'^Jpose^ 
in  no  proper  sense  of  the  term.  God  dispenses  his  gifts  of 
grace  universally,  and  lets  the  result  be  what  it  will ; 
although,  of  course,  being  omniscient,  he  foresees  what  it 
will  be.  The  Socinians  even  denied  this  foresight ;  and 
some  of  the  Arminians  came  near  doing  the  same.  Suarez 
and  the  other  Jesuit  theologians  explicitly  taught  that  the 
difference  between  gratia  sufficiens  and  gratia  efficax  is  not 
in  jpTimo  actu,  or  in  God,  but  in  secundo  actu,  or  the  deport- 
ment of  the  will.  * 


*  Molina  says:  "Deus  sine  uUa  intermisslone  ad  ostium  cordis  nostri 
stat,  paratus  semper  conatus  nostros  adjuvare,  desideransque  ingressum.'* 
Of  the  will  in  relation  to  "  sufficient  grace,"  his  doctrine  is  :  — "Si  con- 
sentiat  et  cooperetur  ut  potest,  efficiat  illud  efficax  ;  si  vero  non  consentiat, 
neque  cooperetur — reddat  illud  inefficax,"     Gieseler,  K.  G,  iii.  2.  614  n. 

The  Molinists  held,  moreover,  that  God  saves  or  condemns  men,  accord- 
ing as  he  foresees  that  under  any  and  all  circumstances  they  will  be  holy, 
or  under  any  and  all  circumstances  resist  his  grace. 

"  Gratia  efficax  vocatur  ex  eventu."  Conf.  Rem.^  17,  5.  "  Sufficiens 
vocatio,  quando  per  cooperationem  liberi  arbitrii  sortitur  suum  effectum, 
vocatur  efficax."  Liraborch,  4,  12,  8.  This  whole  distinction  between 
" sufficient "  grace  and  "efficacious"  grace,  which  belongs  alike  to  the 
Arminians  and  the  Congruists,  has  no  more  place  in  the  New  Haven  sys- 
tem than  in  that  of  Calvinists  generally. 


WITH   PRIOR  NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  387 

The  IN'ew  Haven  doctrine  was  essentially  dissimilar  from 
this.  The  New  Haven  divines  did  not  teach  that  grace  is 
given  in  equal  measure  to  all  individuals  ;  nor  did  they  teach 
that  the  number  of  the  elect  is  made  up  of  those  who  were 
foreseen  to  be  most  pliable  under  recovering  influences,  and 
vice  versa.  It  is  true  that  they  only  are  saved  who  it  was 
foreseen  would  repent  and  believe.  But  their  repentance 
and  faith  are  not  only  foreseen ;  they  result  from  a  peculiar, 
sovereign  distribution  of  the  gifts  of  grace.*  What  Dr.  Fitch 
teaches  in  the  Article  referred  to  may  be  seen  from  such 
declarations  as  the  following : — "  It  is  true  that  God's  fore- 
knowledge of  what  would  be  the  results  of  his  present  works 
of  grace,  jpreceded  in  the  order  of  nature  the  purpose  to  pur- 
sue those  works,  and  presented  the  grounds  of  that  purpose  " 
(p.  622) ;  but  "  why  do  given  sinners  repent  ?  Is  there  no 
ground  of  certainty,  but  what  lies  in  i}ie\Yjpowers  of  agency  ? " 
"  Does  God  use  no  influences  and  means  to  induce  sinners  to 
come  to  him  with  vohmtary  submission,  and  accept  of  life  ? 

*  The  sdentia  media,  in  some  proper  sense  of  the  term,  everybody  who 
believes  that  God  has  a  plan  of  providential  government,  must  admit. 
The  principle  is  involved  in  1  Sam.  xxiii.  9-12,  Matt.  xi.  23,  23.  Tyre 
and  Sid  on  would  have  repented,  had  their  situation  in  one  respect  been 
like  that  of  Bethsaida  and  Chorazin,  These  passages,  says  Dr.  A.  A. 
Hodge,  are  not  cases  of  sdentia  media,  they  "simply  teach  that  God, 
knowing  all  causes,  free  and  necessary,  knows  how  they  would  act  under 
any  proposed  condition"  {Outlines  of  Theology,  p.  114).  What  is  this  but 
sdentia  media  ?  In  fact,  Fonseca,  who  devised  the  term  sdentia  media, 
divides  it  into  two  parts,  the  second  of  which  {sdentia  pure  conditionata) 
is  the  knowledge  of  acts  which  would  have  come  to  pass  under  certain 
conditions  never  actually  realized.  And  he  refers  to  this  very  case  of 
Tyre  and  Sidon.  (Hamilton's  Supplementary  Notes  on  Rdd,  p.  982.) 
This  form  of  knowledge  some  may  think  best  to  include  in  the  knowledge 
of  simple  intelligence  ;  but  this  is  an  objection  not  to  the  thing,  but  to  the 
name.  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  resolves  the  foreordination  of  sin  into  sdentia 
media.  "  God  knowing  certainly  that  the  man  in  question  would  in  the 
given  circumstances  so  act,  did  place  that  very  man  in  precisely  those 
circumstances  that  he  should  so  act "  {Outlines,  etc.,  p.  170).  This  agrees 
entirely  with  the  remark  respecting  the  occurrence  of  sin,  with  which  Dr. 
Fitch  first  connects  the  term  sdentia  media.  {/Spectator,  1831,  p.  609.) 
15 


338  THE   SYSTEM   OF  DE.   TAYLOE   IN   CONNECTION 

Are  these  influences  brought  to  bear  alike  on  all  nations  and 
on  all  individuals  ?  "  *  Election  always  includes  in  it  "  the 
jmrpose  of  God  which  secures  the  repentance  and  faith  of 
those  particular  persons  who  are  saved  and  adopted."  f 

That  Dr.  Fitch  uses  the  phrase  scientia  media — a  phrase 
quite  unexceptionable  in  reference  to  the  foreordination  of 
sinful  voluntary  actions — is  of  no  consequence.  The  ques- 
tion is  whether  he  regarded  the  faith  of  the  believer  as  due 
to  an  efficacy  residing  in  the  means  which  God  employs  for 
his  conversion.     He  says : — 

"Dr.  Fisk  overlooks  the  distinction  made  by  Calvinists,  between  an 
election  to  holiness,  and  an  election  to  salvation.  The  latter  all  admit  to 
be  conditional — to  have  a  '  reference  to  character.'  God  has  elected  none 
to  be  saved,  except  on  the  condition  that  they  voluntarily  embrace  the 
Gospel,  and  persevere  unto  the  end.  But  the  question  is,  How  comes 
any  man  to  comply  with  this  condition — to  have  the  character  in  ques- 
tion? Does  not  God  secure  that  compliance;  does  he  not  elect  the  indi- 
viduals, who  shall  thus  voluntarily  obey  and  persevere  ?  Calvinists  af- 
firm that  he  does.  The  election  unto  holiness  is  the  turning-point  of 
their  system.  They  never  speak  of  an  election  unto  salvation,  except  as 
founded  upon  it — as  presupposing  God's  purpose  to  secure  the  condition 


Dr.  Fitch  does  not,  indeed,  teach  that  grace  is,  properly 
speaking,  irresistible ;  neither  does  Dr.  Hodge.  But  both 
agree  that  it  is  unresisted  and  effectual. 

Dr.  Taylor  illustrates  his  idea  of  election  as  follows : — 
"  Suppose  a  father  can  wisely  do  more  to  secure  the  repent- 
ance of  one  child  than  he  can  wisely  do  to  secure  the  repent- 
ance of  another ;  suppose  that  a  higher  influence  in  one  case 
would  be  safe  and  even  salutary  in  respect  to  the  conduct  of 
his  other  children,  while  in  the  other  case  it  would  in  this 
respect  prove  fatal ;  suppose  him  for  these  reasons  to  use  the 
higher  influence  with  a  design  to  secure  the  obedience  of  one 
child,  and  to  use  it  with  success  ; — is  not  this  election — is  not 
this  making  one  to  differ  from  another — is  not  this  hoAiing 

*  Spectator,  p.  631.  f  Ibid.,  p.  619. 


WITH    PRIOR   NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  3  3^9 

mercy  on  whom  he  will  ha/ce  Tnercy — and  doing  more  for 
one  than  for  another,  and  with  good  reason  too  ?  "  Dr.  Tay- 
lor declares  that  the  probability  of  success  to  be  held  out 
to  sinners,  as  an  encouragement  to  present  effort  and  ac- 
tion, ''  must  be  lowered  down  to  what  the  Apostle  calls  a 
peradventure  that  God  will  give  them  repentance;  and 
that  delay  and  procrastination  are  ever  lessening  this  prob- 
ability." * 

In  short,  the  New  Haven  theologians  taught  that  God  does 
all  the  good  he  wisely  can ;  he  produces  among  his  fallen 
creatures  the  largest  amount  of  holiness  in  the  aggregate 
which  the  nature  of  things,  or  the  essential  requisites  of  the 
best  system,  admit  of ;  they  did  not  teach  that  the  sole  or 
the  principal  of  the  considerations  regulating  the  distribu- 
tion of  his  recovering  influences  among  the  individuals  of 
the  race,  is  the  greater  or  less  degree  of  obstinacy  in  sin 
which  they  are  severally  foreseen  or  perceived  to  have. 

Among  Calvinists  no  one  is  more  emphatic  in  asserting 
that  God  has  good  and  wise  reasons  for  all  his  decrees,  than 
Calvin  himself.  He  is  a  sovereign  ;  he  takes  counsel  with 
no  one,  and  reveals  the  reasons  of  his  determinations  and  ac- 
tions no  further  than  he  deems  best.  But  there  are  the  best 
reasons,  and  one  day  they  will  be  made  known.  Dr.  Taylor 
and  his  associates  believed  that  the  reasons  why  he  does  not 
choose  to  recover  all  from  sin,  may  lie  not  in  any  limitation 
of  his  benevolence,  or,  properly  speaking,  of  his  power,  but 
in  limitations  in  the  nature  of  things  —  in  the  essential 
characteristics  of  the  best  system.  Omnipotence  lays  cer- 
tain restraints  upon  itself  in  governing  a  universe  of  free 
agents  ;  just  as  God,  to  quote  the  pithy  expression  of  Lyman 
Beecher,  does  not  govern  the  stars  by  the  ten  command- 
ments. 

The  New  Haven   doctrine,  then,  did  recognize  an  elec- 


*  Reply  to  Br.  Tyler's  Examination^  p.  18.     Bevealed  Theology^  p.  434. 
See,  also,  m/ra,  p.  334. 


340  THE    SYSTEM   OF   DR.    TAYLOR   IN    CONNECTION 

tion  and  a  sovereignty  in  election,  which  are  not  found  in 
the  Arminian  system.  There  is  no  claim,  of  any  sort,  on  the 
part  of  an  individual  who  is  elected  ;  but  his  salvation — his 
repentance  not  less  than  the  blessings  that  follow  it — is  the 
certain  consequence  of  the  operation  of  a  plan  which  has  in 
view  the  highest  attainable  good ;  and  in  effecting  his  re- 
pentance, the  determining  influence  is  with  God,  so  that  all 
the  glory  of  the  change  is  due  to  him. 

At  the  same  time,  the  New  Haven  doctrine  differed  from 
the  old  Calvinism  in  explicitly  admitting  that  the  universal 
recovery  of  sinners  by  grace,  may  be  inconsistent  with  that 
system  in  which  free  agency  is  to  play  so  essential  a  part, 
and  which  God  has  freely  chosen  as  being  the  best. 

On  the  whole  it  seems  fair  to  describe  the  New  Haven 
type  of  doctrine  as  moderate  Calvinism.* 

4.  Dr.  Hodge  gives  a  very  erroneous  view  of  Dr.  Taylor's 
doctrine  of  regeneration.  Proposing  to  give  the  doctrine  of 
"  the  New  Haven  divines,"  the  former  says :  "  Regeneration 
is  defined  to  be  not  an  act  of  God,  but  an  act  of  the  sinner 
himself."  What  reader  of  this  sentence  would  suppose  that 
Dr.  Taylor,  when  treating,  in  his  published  Lectures,  of  this 
very  subjeqt,  uses  the  following  language :  "  The  Spirit  of 
God  is  the  author  of  the  change  in  Regeneration.  I  cannot 
suppose  it  necessary  to  dwell  on  this  fact  in  opposition  to 
Pelagian  error,  or  the  proud  self-sufficiency  of  the  human 
heart.  The  fa/^t  of  divine  influence  in  the  production  of 
holiness  in  the  heart  of  man,  meets  us,  as  it  were,  on  almost 


*  If  the  New  Haven  theology  is  so  objectionable,  what  is  to  be  thought 
of  the  theology  of  Baxter  ?  He  holds  that  sufficient  grace  is  g-iven  to  all 
"  to  enable  them  to  seek  salvation,  and  God  will  not  forsake  them  until 
they  forsake  him ;  "  that  "  it  is  the  wise  design  of  the  Redeemer  not  to 
give  to  men  the  same  degrees  of  aid  ;  but  to  vary  the  degree,  sometimes 
according  to  the  preparation  and  receptivity  of  men,  and  sometimes  only 
according  to  his  good  pleasure  ;  "  and  that  the  divine  working  is  not  such 
as  "takes  away  the  simultaneous  power  to  the  contrary  (simultatem  po- 
tentisB  ad  contrarium."  Meth.  I'heol.^  P.  iii.,  c.  25,  Cath.  Theol,  B.  ii,, 
p.  133. 


WITH    PRIOR   NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  341 

every  page  of  the  sacred  record ; "  and  Dr.  Taylor  adds, 
quoting  from  the  Synod  of  Dort :  "  This  divine  grace  of  re- 
generation does  not  act  upon  men  like  stocks  and  trees,  nor 
take  away  the  properties  of  the  will,  or  violently  compel  it 
while  unwilling ;  but  it  spiritually  vivifies,  heals,  corrects, 
and  sweetly,  and  at  the  same  time,  powerfully  inclines  it : " 
and  Dr.  Taylor  says  still  further,  that  "  this  influence  of  the 
Spirit  is  distinct  from  the  natural  influence  of  the  truth  ;  and 
though  not  miraculous,  is  supernatural."  He  says,  indeed, 
that  "  the  change  in  regeneration  is  the  sinner's  own  act ;  " 
because  "  the  thing  produced  by  the  power  of  God  is  their 
own  act — the  act  of  putting  on  the  new  man."  *  He  cites, 
with  approbation,  the  sentence  of  President  Edwards  respect- 
ing this  change  :  "  God  produces  all,  and  we  act  all.  For 
that  is  what  he  produces,  viz.,  our  own  acts.^''  f 

Why  not  say  that  President  Edwards  believes  that  regen- 
eration "  is  not  an  act  of  God,"  because  he  says  that  "  we  act 
all?" 

5.  Dr.  Hodge,  in  seeking  to  identify  Dr.  Taylor's  doctrine 
on  the  office  of  grace  in  the  recovery  of  the  sinner,  with  that 
of  Pelagius,  has  made  a  very  misleading  statement  of  the 
latter's  position.  Having  quoted  from  Dr.  Taylor  the  re- 
mark that  "  the  error  of  Pelagius  is,  not  that  he  attained 
man's  ability  without  grace,  but  that  man  does  actually  obey 
God  without  grace,"  Dr.  Hodge  observes :  "  It  is  a  mistake 
to  say  that  Pelagius  held  that  '  men  do  actually  obey  God 
without  grace,'  so  that  this  shadowy  difference  between  him 
and  Dr.  Taylor  on  this  point  vanishes."  Does  not  Dr. 
Hodge  know  that  Pelagius  and  Dr.  Taylor  use  the  term 
"  grace  "  in  a  very  different  signification  ?  That  Dr.  Taylor 
means  here  by  "  grace  "  the  inward,  supernatural  operation 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  that  in  this  sense  Pelagius  did  hold  that 
men  sometimes  "  actually  obey  God  without  grace  ? "     Pe- 


*  Revealed  Theology,  pp.  390,  391. 
f  Outlines  of  Tlieology,  pp.  290,  361. 


34:2  THE   SYSTEM    OF   DR.    TAYLOR   IN   CONNECTION 

lagius,  as  we  have  explained  before,  called  the  law  of  the 
Old  Testament,  providential  dispensations,  the  precepts  of 
Christ  and  various  other  things,  by  the  name  "  grace,"  whilst 
he  made  little  or  nothing  of  the  inward  operation  of  the 
Divine  Spirit.* 

Let  us  now  sum  up  Dr.  Hodge's  charges  against  Dr.  Tay- 
lor's system.  His  generic  charge  is  that  plenary  ability,  or 
the  power  of  contrary  choice,  is  made  to  belong  inseparably 
to  the  will ;  but  he  keeps  out  of  sight,  as  far  as  practical  im- 
pression is  concerned.  Dr.  Taylor's  associated  doctrine  of 
moral  inability.  In  the  formula,  "  certainty  with  power  to 
the  contrary  " — "  certainty  "  is  uttered  sotto  voce. 

Of  the  heretical  corollaries  charged  on  the  system,  the  first 
is  "  that  all  sin  consists  in  the  voluntary  transgression  of 
known  law."  That  all  sin  is  voluntary,  is  the  common  asser- 
tion of  orthodox  theology.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  Augustine, 
as  well  as  of  Dr.  Taylor.f    It  is  the  doctrine  of  Dr.  Hodge 

*  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  defines  the  Pelagian  Conception  of  grace,  as  exclud- 
ing the  internal  operation  of  the  Spirit.  {Outlines  of  Theology^  p.  335.) 
Pelagians  hold,  he  says,  ''That  the  Holy  Spirit  produces  no  internal 
change  in  the  heart  of  the  subject,  except  as  he  is  the  author  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  as  the  Scriptures  present  moral  truths  and  motives,  which 
of  their  own  nature  exert  a  moral  influence  upon  the  soul." 

f  The  doctrine  of  Augustine  on  the  nature  of  sin  is  frequently  miscon- 
ceived. This  is  chiefly  owing  to  the  fact  that  he  uses  the  term  toluntas 
in  so  various  meanings,  and  often  does  this  in  the  same  paragrg,ph.  His 
precise  conception  of  the  concupiscentia  with  which  the  descendants  of 
Adam  are  bom,  must  be  ascertained.  1.  Concupiscence,  which  is  inordi- 
nate desire  for  the  inferior  good — in  particular,  fleshly  desire — belongs  to 
all  men  from  birth,  and  gives  rise  to  a  conflict  in  the  soul  and  to  a  disor- 
dered condition  not  belonging  to  man's  original  nature.  2.  In  the  case 
of  the  baptized  and  i-egenerated,  concupiscence  remains  as  a  principle, 
but  brings  guilt  only  so  far  as  its  impulses  are  obeyed.  ' '  Quamdiu  ergo 
manet  lex  concupiscentialiter  in  membris,  manente  ipsa  reatus  ejus  solvi- 
tur  ;  sed  ei  solvitur,  qui  sacramentum  regenerationis  accepit  renovarique 
jam  coepit."  {De  Pec.  Mer.  et  Remis.,  II,,  xxviii.)  "Nam  ipsa  quidem 
concupiscentia  jam  non  est  peccatum  in  regeneratis,  quando  illi  ad  illici- 
ta  opera  non  consentitur."  (Be  Nupt.  et  Gonc.^  I.,  xiii.)  The  same  thing 
is  said  in  a  multitude  of  other  passages.  3.  That  native  concupiscentia 
is  sin,  is  not  only  implied  in  the  passages  above,  but  is  explicitly  asserted 


WITH    PRIOR   NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  343 

himself.*     And  Dr.  Taylor  does  not  mean  that  sin  is  in 

in  many  places.  It  is  at  once  sin  and  the  punishment  of  sin.  "  Sed  per- 
tinet  originale  peccatum  ad  hoc  genus  tertium,  ubi  sic  peccatum  est,  ut 
ipsum  sit  et  poena  peccati. "  ( Op.  Imp.  Cont.  Jul. ,  I. ,  xlvii. )  Dr.  Emer- 
son, in  a  note  to  his  translation  of  Wiggers  on  Augustinism  and  Pelagian- 
ism,  supposes  Augustine  to  teach  that  concupiscence  is  not  ' '  really  sin  ; " 
but  he  inadvertently  applies  what  Augustine  says  of  the  regenerate  or  bap- 
tized, to  all.  The  very  passage  which  Dr.  Emerson  quotes  (p.  128)  in 
proof  of  his  position,  speaks  of  the  guilt  of  concupiscence  as  pardoned  in 
baptism — ' *  cujus  jam  reatus  lavacro  regenerationis  absumtus  est. "  ( Cont. 
Duas  Epistt.  Pel.^  I.,  xiii.) 

4.  But  Augustine  regarded  concupiscence  as  voluntary.  In  the  long 
passage  of  the  Opus  Imp.  C.  Jul.  (I.,  xliv.  seq.),  where  he  discusses  the 
question  whether  native  sin  is  in  the  will,  and  in  the  Betractationes  (I., 
cxv. )  where  he  explains  the  previous  statement  which  he  had  made  in  the 
treatise  De  libero  Arbitrio^  on  this  subject,  he  goes  no  further  than  to  say 
that  sin  is  ''ex  voluntate  "  and  is  not  "  sine  voluntate  "—J.  e.  it  is  conse- 
quent on  the  sin  of  Adam.  In  these  places,  however,  he  has  in  mind 
voluntariness  involving  power  to  the  contrary ;  as  he  elsewhere  says : — 
"cum  autem  de  libera  voluntate  recte  faciendi  loquimur,  de  ilia  scilicet 
in  qua  homo  factus  est,  loquimur."  {De  Lib.  Arb..,  III.,  xviii.)  But  that 
native  concupiscence  involves  the  consent  of  the  will,  he  clearly  teaches. 
"  Nam  quid  est  cupiditas  et  laetitia,  nisi  voluntas  in  eorum  consensionem 
quae  volumus  ?  "  "  Cum  consentimus  appetendo  ea  quse  volumus,  cupidi- 
tas." "Voluntas  est  quippe  in  omnibus  :  imo  omnes  nihil  aliud  quam 
voluntates  sunt."  (De  Oiv.  Dei,  XIV.,  c.  vii.)  "Si  quisquam  etiara  di- 
cit  ipsam  cupiditatera  nihil  aliud  esse  quam  voluntatem,  sed  vitiosam 
peccatoque  servientem,  non  resistendum  est :  nee  de  verbis,  cum  res  con- 
stet,  controversia  facienda."  (Betractt.,!.,  c.  xv.)  "  Cupiditas  porro  im- 
proba  voluntas  est.  Ergo  improba  voluntas  malorum  omnium  causa  est." 
(De  Lib.  Arbit.,  III.,  xvii.)  Native  sin  belongs  to  the  will,  but  to  a  will 
enslaved.  Voluntas  is,  also,  frequently  used  by  Augustine  for  the  voli- 
tive  function,  by  which  executive  acts  of  choice  are  put  forth ;  and  in 
this  meaning  he  frequently  speaks  of  sin  as  involuntary,  or  existing 
against  the  will.  Under  this  head,  he  is  never  tired  of  referring  the  Pela- 
gians to  Rom.  vii.  18. 

Thus  Voluntas  is  used  by  Augustine  (1 )  for  the  free-will  in  Adam, 
which  included  the  power  to  the  contrary  ;  (3)  for  the  spontaneous  sinful 
affections  consequent  on  the  first  sin,  in  him  and  his  posterity,  or  the  will 
in  servitude ;  and  (3)  for  the  volitionary  faculty,  or  the  faculty  which 
puts  forth  imperative  choices. 

*  This  is  the  view  given  by  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge,  Outlines  of  Theology,  pp. 
223,  234,  257. 


344  THE    SYSTEM    OF   DR.    TAYLOR   IN   CONNECTIOK 

volitions   merely,   or   superficial,   imperative  choices.     He 
would  agree  with  Dr.  Shedd,  in  the  following  statements : 

"It  seems  to  us  that  by  the  will  is  meant  a  voluntary  power  that  lies 
at  the  very  centre  of  the  soul,  and  whose  movements  consist,  not  so  much 
in  choosing  or  refusing-,  in  reference  to  particular  circumstances,  as  in  de- 
termining the  whole  man  with  reference  to  some  great  and  ultimate  end 
of  living.  The  characteristic  of  the  will  proper,  as  distinguished  from 
the  volitionary  faculty,  is  determination  of  the  whole  being  to  an  ulti- 
mate end,  rather  than  selection  of  means  for  attaining  that  end  in  a  par- 
ticular case."  "  The  will,  as  thus  defined,  we  affirm  to  be  the  responsible 
and  guilty  author  of  the  sinful  nature.  Indeed  this  sinful  nature  is  noth- 
ing more  nor  less  than  the  state  of  the  will ;  nothing  more  nor  less  than 
its  constant  and  total  determination  to  self,  as  the  ultimate  end  of 
living."  * 

In  short.  Dr.  Taylor  held  that  sin  is  a  profound,  imma- 
nent, permanent  preference  of  the  will,  whereby  a  man 
lives  to  self,  instead  of  living  to  God  ;  a  preference  at  the 
root  of  all  subordinate  action.  Dr.  Taylor  held  that  this  is 
an  elective  preference ;  the  soul  sets  hefore  it  this  end  of 
living ;  and  by  this  distinction,  he  removed  a  great  source  of 
ambiguity  and  confusion  from  theology.  There  are  invol- 
untary, strictly  constitutional  dispositions,  inclinations ;  but 
this  is  voluntary,  flowing  from  an  elective  act,  yet  central, 
permanent,  and  controlling. 

But  Dr.  Taylor  holds  that  sin  is  the  transgression  of 
hnown  law.  Dr.  Hodge,  in  his  definitions  of  moral  agency, 
says  the  same  thing,  though  inconsistently  with  other  parts 
of  his  own  teaching,  f    Dr.  Taylor  held  that  consciousness 


*  Essays,  pp.  240,  243. 

•f  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  says  that  to  be  morally  responsible,  *'  a  man  must 
be  a  free,  rational,  moral  agent."  "  1st.  He  must  be  in  present  possession 
of  his  reason  to  distinguish  truth  from  falsehood.  2d.  He  must  liave  in 
exercise  a  moral  sense  to  distinguish  right  from  wrong." — Outlines  of 
Theology^  p.  221.  *'  Only  a  moral  agent,  or  one  endowed  with  intelligence, 
conscience,  and  free  will  can  sin."  Ibid.,  p.  225.  "  All  sin  has  its  root 
in  the  perverted  dispositions,  desires,  and  affections  which  constitute  the 
depraved  state  of  the  will.  P.  234.  If  Dr.  Hodge  would  distinguish  will 
from  desire — that  which  is  purely  spontaneous  from  that  which  is  elective 
— he  would  clear  his  system  of  one  prolific  source  of  confusion. 


WITH   PRIOR  NEW  ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  345 

is  a  tiling  of  degrees ;  men  commonly  sin  without  reflec- 
tion ;  there  are  sins  which  may  be  called  thoughtless,  and 
there  are  those  which  maybe  called  sins  of  ignorance.  The 
"  awakening  "  of  a  sinner  is  the  deepening  of  consciousness 
or  the  passing  of  consciousness  into  reflection ;  the  coming 
of  a  man  to  himself. 

But  let  it  be  granted  that  while  Dr.  Hodge  holds  that 
during  a  certain  undefined  period  of  infantile  existence,  sin 
is  committed,  or  there  is  sin  when  there  is  no  knowledge, 
and  no  possibility  of  the  knowledge,  of  law,  while  Dr.  Tay- 
lor supposes  that  during  this  period  there  is  either  no  sin,  or 
there  is  some  degree  of  consciousness  of  duty.  Shall  this 
difference  cast  Dr.  Taylor  beyond  the  pale  of  "  all  organized 
churches  ?  "  Let  it  be  noticed  that  Augustinians  who  hold 
to  sin  in  infants  prior  to  choice,  believe  that  their  guilt  is 
washed  away  by  the  easy  remedy  of  baptism ;  and  at  the 
present  day  the  universal  salvation  of  those  who  die  in  in- 
fancy is  generally  held. 

And  here  it  would  be  interesting  to  ascertain  how  Dr. 
Hodge  reconciles  his  own  opinion  on  this  last  topic  with  the 
creeds.  We  have  been  led  to  believe  that  he  holds  to  the 
salvation  of  all  persons  dying  in  infancy.  The  Augustinian 
system  holds  to  the  perdition  of  unbaptized  and  non-elect 
infants.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  Augustine  himself.  So 
Jansenius  teaches.  Moreover,  the  Westminster  Confession 
declares  :  "  Elect  infants  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated 
and  saved  by  Christ,  through  the  Spirit."  This  plainly  implies 
that  non-elect  infants  are  not  saved.  It  is  nonsense  to  speak 
of  elect  infants  as  saved,  if  all  infants  are  meant.  Besides  the 
added  clause,  in  the  same  paragraph,  about  the  salvation  of 
"  all  other  elect  persons,  who  are  incapable  of  being  out- 
wardly called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word,"  settles  the  mean- 
ing of  the  passage  ;  for,  of  course,  not  all  of  the  heathen  are 
here  declared  to  be  among  the  saved.  Moreover  it  is  im- 
mediately declared  that  "  others  not  elected "  "  cannot  be 
saved."  The  framers  of  the  confession  held  that  dejure  all 
15* 


346  THE    SYSTEM    OF   DR.    TAYLOR   IN   CONNECTION 

infants  are  lost ;  that  de  facto  there  are  two  and  only  two 
ways  in  which  they  can  be  saved — through  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  w^hich  saves  the  baptized  among  them,  and  sover- 
eign election  which  is  not  limited  by  the  covenant.  The 
Augustinians  believed  with  Dr.  Hodge,  that  new-born  in- 
fants have  in  them  that  sin  which  is  the  parent  of  all  sins ; 
they  believed  with  him  that  they  are  hell-deserving ;  and 
they  believed  that  only  the  baptized  and  elected  ones  among 
them  will  be  saved.  Does  Dr.  Hodge  agree  to  this  last 
proposition  ?  If  not,  does  he  accept  the  confession  in  its 
fair  import  ?  * 

One  ground  of  complaint  against  the  New  Haven  theology 
is,  that  it  leaves  no  room  for  infant  regeneration.  But  it  is 
entirely  consistent  with  Dr.  Taylor's  system  to  suppose  that 
even  those  who  die  in  infancy,  need  the  sanctifying  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit  to  prevent  them  from  beginning  their 
moral  life  sinfully,  and  thus  that  they  owe  their  salvation 
to  Christ.f 

In  regard  to  the  second  of  the  special  errors  of  the  New 
Haven  theology — the  denial  of  hereditary  sin,  it  is  enough 
to  answer  that  Augustinian  theology  holds  to  no  hereditary 
sin  which  is  not  also  voluntary.  Whatever  is  peculiar  to 
Dr.  Taylor  on  this  point  results  from  his  disbelief  in  our 
legal  responsibility  for  Adam's  sin.  Men  will  differ  in  their 
estimate  of  the  importance  of  this  opinion.  But  it  must  be 
remembered  that  Dr.  Taylor  believed  that  all  men  are  to- 
tally depraved  from  the  beginning  of  moral  agency,  and 
until  they  are  regenerated  by  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  and  that 
this  depravity  is  connected,  as  a  certain  consequence,  with 
the  first  sin  of  Adam. 

The  other  points  in  Dr.  Hodge's  indictment  refer  to  the 

*  We  are  not  so  ignorant  as  to  suppose  that  the  old  C'alvinists  all  be- 
lieved in  the  de  facto  perdition  of  infants.  Yet  not  only  supralapsarians, 
but  some  infralapsarians,  <?i^  maintain  this  dogma;  and  the  language  ot 
the  Westminster  Confession,  in  its  fair  import,  implies  it. 

f  Christian  Spectatoi;  vol.  v.,  p.  661 


WITH    PRIOR    NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  347 

power  of  God  in  relation  to  tlie  control  of  free  agents,  and 
rest,  to  a  considerable  extent,  as  we  have  shown,  on  a  mis- 
apprehension of  Dr.  Taylor's  teaching. 

We  may  state  now  in  a  few  words  the  relation  of  the  New 
Haven  divinity  to  Old  Calvinism. 

The  peculiarity  of  the  New  Haven  system  is  in  its  view 
respecting  the  non-prevention  of  sin — of  sin  in  its  begin- 
ning and  in  its  continuance  in  the  non-elect. 

Supralapsarian  Calvinism  held  that  the  fall  is  divinely 
ordained  as  a  means  to  an  end — that  end  being  the  furnish- 
ing of  sinful  subjects,  on  whom  God  could  illustrate  both 
his  compassion  and  his  punitive  justice.  The  election  of 
the  one  class  and  the  reprobation  of  the  other,  is  the  decree 
first  in  order.  This  system  in  reality  traces  all  sin  to  the 
efficient  agency  of  the  First  Cause.  "  The  sixteenth  cen- 
tury," says  Julius  Miiller,  "  might  carry  out  such  thoughts, 
and  the  most  energetic  Christian  piety  was  compatible  with 
them.  To-day,  with  the  clearer  consciousness  of  the  prem- 
ises and  consequences  of  that  view,  it  could  not  be  scientifi- 
cally developed  without  leading  to  Pantheism."  * 

The  infralapsarian  Calvinism  made  election  have  respect 
to  the  race  already  fallen.  Sin  is  permitted  for  inscrutable 
reasons,  and  from  the  race  of  sinners  the  elect  are  chosen. 
The  decree  of  election  follows  the  decree  permitting  the  in- 
troduction of  sin. 

The  infralapsarian  system  left  room  for  supposing  other 
reasons  for  the  permission  of  sin  than  that  assigned  by  the 
supralapsarians.f 

The  Xew  Haven  divines  suggested  as  a  possible  explana- 
tion, that  to  the  eye  of 'infinite  wisdom  it  may  be  better  for 
this  universe  of  free  agents,  io permit  sin  to  exist  when  and 
where  it  does  exist,  than  to  exert  the  positive  influence 
requisite  to  prevent  it ;  'that  such  a  voluntary  limitation,  on 


*  Lehre  v.  d.  Silnde,  i. ,  364, 

f  So  says  Alexander  Schweizer,  Central- dogmen  der  Ref.  Kirche, 


348  THE    SYSTEM    OF   DR.    TAYLOR   IN   CONNECTION 

tlie  part  of  God,  of  his  agency,  alone  comports  with  the 
characteristics  of  that  moral  system  which  he  has  chosen  to 
establish,  and  which  is  the  best.  A  like  limitation,  for  the 
same  general  reason,  takes  place  in  reference  to  the  non- 
elect. 

To  the  objection  that  this  theory  derogates  from  the 
divine  power,  it  is  replied  that  every  theodicy  is  a  scheme  of 
optimism ;  that  the  opposite  theory  of  sin  being  the  indis- 
pensable instrument  of  accomplishing  the  greatest  good,  pal- 
pably implies  a  limitation  of  the  divine  power.  The  dogma 
that  God  could  prevent  all  sin  without  detriment  to  the 
system,  clashes  with  his  benevolence. 

These  advantages  were  claimed  for  the  theory  suggested 
by  the  I^ew  Haven  divines :  (1.)  that  it  silences  the  infidel 
objection  to  the  benevolence  of  God ;  (2.)  renders  the  de- 
nunciation of  sin  as  an  unqualified  evil,  consistent  with 
truth ;  (3.)  vindicates  the  perfect  sincerity  of  the  invitations 
and  enti-eaties  addressed  in  the  Gospel  to  sinners ;  (4.)  di- 
rectly connects  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit  with  the  divine 
benevolence,  acting  with  a  view  to  accomplish  the  greatest 
good  in  the  aggregate. 

It  had  been  objected  to  Calvinism  that  in  representing  the 
compassion  of  God  as  fastening  on  particular  persons  to  the 
exclusion  of  others,  whose  case  equally  appeals  to  compas- 
sion, the  very  idea  of  compassion,  as  a  benevolent  feeling, 
is  violated.  That  is  to  say,  it  is  not  from  compassion  that 
even  the  elect  are  saved.  It  was  claimed  for  the  IS^ew 
Haven  doctrine  that  it  took  from  election  this  arbitrary 
quality  by  identifying  it  with  a  benevolent  plan,  in  the  for- 
mation of  which,  while  compassion  is  felt  equally  for  all, 
there  is  no  respect  of  persons,  but  only  an  eye  to  the  largest 
good  which  impartial  love,  under  the  guidance  of  wisdom, 
can  attain. 

In  a  word,  the  Kew  Haven  theology  carried  the  inf  ralap- 
sarian  scheme  another  step,  by  directly  connecting  the  de- 
crees of  God  respecting  the  fall  and  recovery  of  man,  with 


WITH   PKIOK   NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  349 

his  henevoUnce  •  in  such  a  way,  however,  as  to  exclude  the 
idea  that  sin,  either  in  itself  considered  or  all  things  consid- 
ered, is  ever  preferred  by  him  to  holiness  in  its  stead.  God 
gives  mankind  a  probation  under  law ;  foreseeing  the  fact 
of  universal  sin,  he  provides  a  salvation  which  is  sufficient 
for  all  and  is  sincerely  urged  upon  the  acceptance  of  all; 
foreseeing  the  universal  rejection  of  the  Saviour,  he  adds  a 
peculiar  supernatural  influence  to  convert  the  soul,  but  this 
influence  is  not  dispensed  indiscriminately,  and  without  stint, 
but  in  accordance  with  a  wise  plan  which  will  effect  the  ac- 
tual conversion  of  only  a  part  of  a  race,  all  of  whom  are  alike 
guilty. 

On  the  subject  of  human  agency  in  conversion,  there  have 
been,  as  all  students  of  history  know,  two  generic  types  of 
opinion — two  great  streams  of  doctrine,  taking  their  rise  far 
back  in  the  ancient  church.  According  to  one  of  these 
types  of  opinion,  there  belongs  to  man  a  cooperative  agency 
in  relation  to  the  grace  of  the  Spirit.  According  to  the 
other,  the  Spirit  is  the  sole  Efficient,  and  the  human  will  is 
merely  the  theatre  of  His  operation.  The  Greek  Church, 
from  the  earliest  times,  has  cherished  the  first  form  of  doc- 
trine. Her  great  fathers,  Origen,  Athanasius,  the  two  Gre- 
gories,  Basil,  Chrysostom,  and  her  theologians  generally,  let 
them  differ  on  other  points  as  they  may,  are  unanimous  in 
ascribing  to  man  some  remaining  power  to  good.  This,  too, 
was  the  Latin  theology  down  to  Augustine.  It  was  the 
earlier  theology  of  Augustine  himself,  after  his  conversion. 
He  at  first  rejected  unconditional  election  and  irresistible 
grace;  and  his  earlier  views  unquestionably  correspond  to 
the  current  type  of  thinking  at  and  before  that  time.  While 
the  church  was  fighting  Stoics^  Gnostics,  and  Manichaeans, 
stress  was  laid  upon  the  liberty  of  the  will.  Augustine, 
carrying  out  half-developed  suggestions  of  Latin  theolo- 
gians before  him,  brought  forward  views  respecting  the 
power  of  sin  over  the  will,  which  induced  a  revolution  in 


350  THE    SYSTEM   OF   DK.    TAYLOR   IN   CONNECTION 

anthropology,  and  have  exerted  the  most  extensive  and  last- 
ing influence.  But  before  Augustine  died,  the  rise  of  the 
semi-Pelagian  party  showed  how  many  there  were  whom 
his  opinions  failed  to  satisfy.  Henceforward,  in  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  Church,  the  two  types  of  doctrine  are  found 
side  by  side.  They  are  severally  represented  in  the  middle 
ages  by  the  two  great  schools,  the  Thomists  and  the  Scotists, 
coincident  with  the  two  great  monastic  orders,  the  Domini- 
cans and  Franciscans.  The  Reformers  followed  Augustine ; 
but  soon,  on  the  Lutheran  side,  Melanchthon  set  up  the 
synergistic  doctrine,  and  among  the  Lutherans,  even  where 
the  Philippist  view  was  in  form  disavowed,  the  prevailing 
doctrine  has  been  that  of  conditional  election.  In  the  Re- 
formed branch  of  the  Protestant  Church,  Arminius  was 
persuaded  of  the  error  of  the  doctrine  which  he  w^as  set  to 
defend,  and  began  a  most  influential  movement,  the  essen- 
tial feature  of  which  is  the  denial  of  unconditional  election 
and  irresistible  grace.  The  Church  of  England,  at  first  in 
sympathy  with  Calvinism,  became  mostly  Arminian.  With- 
in that  church,  there  sprang  up  the  "Wesleyan  movement, 
the  most  zealous,  aggressive,  and  successful  religious  move- 
ment on  the  Protestant  side,  since  the  age  of  the  Reforma- 
tion— which  had  for  one  of  its  main  characteristics  an  ener- 
getic, not  to  say  passionate,  protest  against  the  doctrine  of 
unconditional,  personal  election.  Glancing  back  to  the 
Catholic  Church,  we  find,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  the 
Molinists  in  conflict  with  the  Dominicans,  and  the  Congre- 
gatio  de  auxiliis  adjourning,  after  years  of  fruitless  effort, 
without  adjusting  the  dispute  ;  the  Council  of  Trent,  unable 
to  harmonize  the  two  great  parties,  and  taking  refuge  in 
ambiguities ;  the  Jansenists,  in  the  sixteenth  century  reviv- 
ing the  Augustinian  doctrine,  only  to  kindle  anew  the 
flames  of  an  unending  controversy.  The  marvellous  subtlety 
of  the  great  Catholic  theologians  from  Bellarmine  to  Per- 
rone,  has  been  exercised  in  defining  the  tenets  of  the  various 
contending  schools,  on  the  relation  of  free-will  to  grace. 


WITH    PRIOR   NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  351 

The  advocates  of  each  of  the  two  types  of  doctrine  have 
supposed  themselves  to  be  standing  in  defence  of  practical 
truth  of  the  highest  consequence.  On  the  one  hand,  the 
full  responsibility  of  man  is  kept  prominently  in  view ;  on 
the  other,  his  full  dependence  on  God.  On  the  one  hand 
there  is  a  purpose  to  take  from  the  sinner  every  excuse  for 
his  rejection  of  Christ ;  on  the  other  there  is  a  purpose  to 
ascribe  to  God  all  the  praise  of  his  conversion.  Man's  need 
of  redemption,  and  his  capacity  of  redemption,  are  both  to 
be  saved.  A  moral  government  over  free  and  accountable 
beings,  the  authors  of  their  own  actions,  and  therefore 
proper  subjects  of  punishment  and  reward,  and  a  providen- 
tial government,  laying  a  foundation  for  implicit  submission, 
resignation,  and  confidence  under  all  events,  and  for  unre- 
served gratitude  for  the  restoration  of  the  soul  from  sin, 
must  both  be  recognized  in  a  just  and  comprehensive  system 
of  theology. 

^ow  there  have  been  individuals  who,  while  seeing  that 
the  Calvinistic  doctrine  not  only  has  a  place  in  Scripture, 
but  also  in  Christian  experience,  have  not  felt  that  the  ob- 
jections which  have  been  brought  forward  age  after  age  by 
able  and  pious  men,  and  by  powei-ful  sections  of  the  church, 
are  the  mere  offspring  of  "  carnal  reason."  They  have  felt 
that  a  certain  force  belongs  to  these  objections ;  that  they 
embody  real  difficulties.  Under  this  conviction,  they  have 
endeavored  to  solve  them,  without  parting  with  •  the  essen- 
tial principles  and  practical  interests  inseparable  from  the 
system  against  which  those  objections  are  directed.  Such  a 
man,  among  the  English  Puritans,  was  Richard  Baxter. 
Another  of  the  same  class  was  Dr.  Taylor.  Both  were 
charged  with  deserting  the  cause  which  they  wished  to  de- 
fend and  to  recommend  to  serious  men  who  regarded  it 
with  aversion. 

It  is  a  curious  fact  that  men  who  are  loud  in  their  denun- 
ciation of  Dr.  Taylor's  system,  profess  themselves  willing 
to  tolerate  the  extreme  Hopkinsians.     They  are  shocked  at 


352  THE    SYSTEM   OF   DR.    TAYLOR   IN    CONNECTION 

the  assertion  of  a  power  of  contrary  choice,  but  they  can 
put  up  with  the  doctrine  that  God  is  the  creator  of  sin ! 
They  can  freely  tolerate  propositions  w^hich  are  not  only  de- 
nounced by  all  the  creeds  of  Christendom,  but,  if  logically 
carried  out,  would  banish  all  religion  from  the  earth.  But 
these,  it  is  said,  are  errors  "  in  the  right  direction."  In  the 
right  direction !  That  is,  in  the  direction  of  Spinoza  and 
Hegel — in  the  direction  of  an  all-devouring  Pantheism ! 
J^obody  at  the  present  day  denies  predestination.  Buckle, 
Mill,  et  id  omne  genus,  outdo  Calvin  in  asserting  predesti- 
nation. But  the  truth  which  is  denied  in  these  days  is  the 
free  and  responsible  nature  of  man  and  the  Tnoral  govern- 
ment of  God — a  government  of  law,  and  of  rewards  and 
punishments,  over  free  agents ;  the  truth  which  Dr.  Taylor 
was  so  concerned  to  rescue  from  all  assaults.  Theologians, 
before  they  cast  their  anathemas  among  their  brethren, 
would  do  well  to  attend  to  the  times  in  which  they  live,  and 
to  the  peculiar  dangers  of  the  present  generation. 

The  union  of  the  two  dissevered  branches  of  the  Presby- 
terian church  will  be  a  good  thing  or  an  evil  thing,  accord- 
ing to  its  effect  in  promoting  or  weakening  the  intolerant 
spirit  which  forced  the  separation.  If  it  bring  with  it  a 
catholic  temper,  and  if  it  do  not  tend  to  stifle  theological 
inquiry,  it  will  be  a  great  good.  But  if  it  result  in  build- 
ing up  sectarian  walls  to  greater  height  and  strength  and  in 
reinforcing  the  party  of  intolerance,  it  will  bring  no  advan- 
tage. The  danger  is  that  the  fear  of  exciting  discord,  min- 
gled with  the  fear  of  church  censure,  will  lead  to  at  least 
a  tacit  compliance  with  the  wishes  of  the  more  exacting 
section.  Division  is  better  than  stagnation,  and  is  far  less 
to  be  dreaded  than  the  tyranny  of  an  illiberal  dogmatism. 
In  our  age  and  country,  evangelical  Christianity  is  called 
upon  to  cling  to  the  fundamental  contents  of  the  Gospel, 
but  it  must  also  tolerate  differences  in  non-essential  points, 
and  freely  concede  that  measure  of  freedom  of  opinion, 
without  which  a  healthy  life  and  progress  are  impossible. 


WITH    PBIOE   NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY.  353 

A  church  which  could  not  find  room  in  its  ministry  for  men 
like  Moses  Stuai-t,  Lyman  Beecher,  and  Albert  Barnes, 
would  be,  however  big  in  numbers,  about  the  meanest  and 
narrowest  sect  in  America.  A  sect  that  would  cast  Zwin- 
gle,  the  first  founder  of  the  Reformed  Church,  out  of  its 
ministry !  * 

Every  man  who  can  read  the  signs  of  the  times  must  see 
that  the  Protestant  world  is  growing  tired  of  sectarian 
Christianity,  and  is  yearning  for  a  more  catholic  and  frater- 
nal connection  among  the  disciples  of  Christ.  If  the  union 
of  the  two  branches  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  can  be  ef- 
fected on  a  truly  catholic  basis,  we  shall  hail  it  with  warm 
satisfaction.  It  will  be  an  event  in  consonance  with  the 
prevailing  tendency  of  Christian  minds.  It  will  be  a  blow 
at  that  sect-system,  which  is  the  scandal  of  our  Protestant 
Christianity.     We  shall  regret  the  reunion,  only  in  case  it 

*  Zwingle,  as  is  well  known,  denied  that  native  vitiosifcy  is  properly 
sin,  though  it  be  the  uniform  occasion  of  sin  :  "  Non  enim  f acinus  con- 
tra legem.  Morbus  igitur  est  proprie  et  conditio,"  etc.  {Ratio  Fidei, 
Niemeyer's  ed.  ,pp.  20,  21.)  It  is  true  that  the  old  Protestant  creeds 
emphatically  asserted  the  opposite  doctrine.  The  question  here  is  not 
whether  they  were  right  or  wrong  in  this.  Nor  is  the  question  what  the 
feelings  of  men  were  in  regard  to  such  a  difference,  in  an  age  when,  for 
differences  no  greater  than  those  which  divided  Calvinists  from  Luther- 
ans, men  were  ready  to  bite  and  devour  one  another.  But  the  question 
is  whether  at  the  present  day,  which  has  the  credit  of  being  less  swayed 
by  the  spirit  of  exclusion,  a  man  who  believes  in  total  and  universal  de- 
pravity, and  the  truths  of  redemption,  is  to  be  cast  out  for  holding  an 
opinion  like  that  of  Zwingle.  Az  that  time  even,  and  in  his  case,  it 
formed,  as  far  as  we  know,  no  barrier  to  fellowship  with  him  on  the  part 
of  those,  whether  Lutheran  or  Reformed,  who  held  the  contrary  doctrine. 

Objection  had  been  made  to  Zwingle's  expressions  on  the  subject  of 
original  sin  ;  and  this  led  him,  in  1524,  to  write  his  De  Peccato  Onginali 
Declaration  in  the  form  of  a  letter,  to  Rhegius  {Works,  t.  iii.).  But, 
with  some  inconsistencies,  his  doctrine  is  here  substantially  what  it  had 
been  before.  The  conference  at  Marburg  was  in  1529 ;  so  that  the  Ratio 
Fidei,  to  which  we  refer  above,  which  was  presented  at  Augsburg  in 
1530,  represents  his  mature  opinions.     He  died  the  next  year. 


354  THE    SYSTEM   OF   DR.    N.    W.    TAYLOE. 

serves  to  give  a  little  longer  respite  to  that  over-dogmatic, 
intolerant,  seventeenth-century  tone  of  Protestantism,  which 
exaggerated  minor  differences,  left  an  open  way  for  the 
great  Papal  reaction,  provoked  the  spirit  of  scepticism  in 
all  Protestant  countries,  and  stands  in  perpetual  contradic- 
tion to  the  precepts  and  spirit  of  the  Testament. 

"We  have  written  the  foregoing  pages,  not  because  we 
are  able  to  accept  all  the  solutions  of  the  high  problems  of 
theology,  which  the  New  Haven  divines  incorporated  in 
their  system  ;  for  we  are  not.  We  have  written  as  exposi- 
tors, not  as  advocates.  But  we  regard  the  persistent  effort 
to  stigmatize  the  New  Haven  system  by  affixing  to  it  the 
epithet  Pelagian^  as  utterly  groundless  and  unjustifiable. 
And  we  hold  in  high  honor  the  originators  of  this  theologi- 
cal system..  Drs.  Taylor,  Fitch,  and  Goodrich  formed  to- 
gether a  corps  of  theologians  of  whom  it  is  not  too  much  to 
say  that  any  university  in  Christendom  might  well  be  proud. 
The  rare  and  admirable  ability  which  they  displayed  in  the 
discussion  of  theological  questions  was  mingled  with  an  un- 
tiring zeal  in  promoting  practical  religion.  In  the  pulpit 
or  the  conference  room,  as  religious  teachers  or  counsellors, 
their  labors  were  abundant,  and  were  attended  with  unsur- 
passed success.  They  investigated  theology,  not  so  much  to 
gratify  an  intellectual  curiosity,  as  to  arm  themselves  for 
the  practical  work  of  persuading  men  to  turn  to  God.  One 
of  this  group  of  eminent  men  still  survives ;  *  one  in  whom 
philosophical  power,  rhetorical  felicity,  and  poetic  feeling 
are  equally  mingled,  and  whose  modest,  unambitious  charac- 
ter serves  to  set  in  stronger  relief  his  almost  unrivalled 
genius  as  a  theologian  and  preacher. 

*  [Dr.  E.  T.  Fitch.    He  died  Jan.  31,  1871.] 


AUGUSXmiAN   AND   FEDERAL   THEORIES   COMPARED.       355 


THE  AUGUSTINIAN  AND  THE  FEDERAL  THEORIES 
OF  ORIGINAL  SIN  COMPARED.* 

The  one  word  which  expresses  both  the  nature  and  the 
end  or  aim  of  Christianity,  is  redemption.  The  correlate  of 
redemption  is  sin.  Parallel,  therefore,  in  importance  with 
the  doctrine  of  redemption  in  the  Christian  system  is  the 
doctrine  of  sin.  The  two  doctrines,  like  the  facts  which 
they  represent,  are  mutually  inseparable.  If  it  be  true  just 
now  that  the  person  and  work  of  the  Redeemer  engross  at- 
tention, to  the  comparative  exclusion  of  other  topics  of  the- 
ology, it  is  equally  true  that  no  adequate  discussion,  and  much 
more  no  adequate  solution,  of  the  questions  belonging  to  this 
theme,  are  practicable,  apart  from  right  views  of  sin.  The 
disease  must  be  known  and  admitted  before  you  can  com- 
prehend the  remedy.  "They  that  are  whole  need  not  a 
physician,  but  they  that  are  sick."  The  Gospel  is  unintelli- 
gible or  is  a  folly  to  him  who  is  blind  to  the  vast  disorder 
which  the  Gospel  comes  to  rectify.  Either  as  a  theoretical 
or  as  a  practical  system,  he  can  make  nothing  of  it. 

We  deem  it  to  be  of  the  highest  consequence  to  distin- 
guish, so  to  speak,  great  doctrinal  facts  from  philosophical 
theories  attached  to  them.  The  truths  of  Christianity  in- 
volve and  suggest  problems,  which,  in  some  cases,  the  Scrip- 
tures do  not  profess  to  explain.  Explanations  of  human  in- 
vention may  be  of  more  or  less  value  ;  but  it  is  hurtful  not 
only  to  theology  as  a  science,  but  also  to  the  cause  of  practi- 
cal religion,  when  these  explanations  are  elevated  to  the  rank 

•  From  T?ie  New  Englander  for  July,  1868. 


356  THE   AFGUSTINIAN   AND   THE   FEDERAL 

of  dogmas,  and  the  inculcation  of  them  is  made  part  and 
parcel  of  the  teaching  of  the  Gospel. 

It  is  partly  this  conviction  which  has  led  us  to  undertake 
the  present  discussion.  We  believe  that  a  great,  unquestion- 
able, universal  fact,  like  that  of  sin,  deserves  to  be  admitted 
in  full  earnest  by  everybody.  At  the  same  time,  we  believe 
that  there  are  theories  of  human  device,  which  have  been  in- 
vented to  clear  up  difficulties,  but  which,  in  truth,  create 
vastly  more  embarrassment  than  they  remove.  We  do  not 
here  assert  this  equally  of  all  the  theories  which  theology 
has  broached  concerning  this  great  matter.  The  limits  and 
applications  of  our  remark,  the  progress  of  the  discussion — 
especially  if  we  should  pursue  it  beyond  the  present  essay — 
will  make  clear.     . 

There  are  three  theories  respecting  original  sin  which  we 
shall  have  occasion  specially  to  consider  in  this  Article.  The 
first  is  the  Augustinian ;  the  second  may  be  called  the  Au- 
gustino-federal  or  the  semi-federal ;  and  the,  third  the  fed- 
eral theory. 

The  fundamental  idea  of  the  Augustinian  theory  is  that  of 
a  participation  on  the  part  of  the  descendants  of  Adam  in 
his  first  sin ;  in  consequence  of  which  they  are  born  both 
guilty  and  morall^^  depraved.  The  fundamental  idea  of  the 
federal  theory  is  that  of  a  vicarious  representation  on  the 
part  of  Adam,  in  virtue  of  a  covenant  between  God  and  him, 
whereby  the  legal  responsibility  for  his  first  sinful  act  is  en- 
tailed upon  all  his  descendants  ;  participation  being  excluded, 
but  the  propriety  of  his  appointment  to  this  vicarious  office 
being  founded  on  our  relation  to  him  as  the  common  father 
of  men.  The  Augustino-federal  or  semi-federal  theory  is  a 
combination  of  the  two,  the  covenant  relation  of  Adam  be- 
ing prominent,  but  participation  being  also,  with  more  or 
less  emphasis,  asserted. 

Besides  these  theories,  some  have  held  to  hereditary  sin, 
but  rejected  both  participation  and  the  covenant.     Others 


THEOKIES    OF    OKIGINAL   SIN   COMPARED.  357 

Lave  embraced  the  doctrine  of  an  individual  pre-existence 
and  fall — a  pre-existence  either  transcendental  and  timeless, 
or  in  time.  Others  still  have  denied  the  existence  of  native 
sin,  or  of  any  sin  prior  to  a  personal  act  of  choice  in  the 
present  life.  Spinoza  and  all  other  Pantheists  deny,  of  course, 
the  essential  antagonism  of  moral  good  and  moral  evil,  so  that 
to  them  the  problem  loses  its  proper  significance.  But  these 
last  theories  of  Christian  theology,  as  well  as  this  antichris- 
tian,  necessitarian  hypothesis,  we  have  no  particular  occasion 
to  discuss  in  this  place. 

The  federal  doctrine  is  the  offspring  of  the  seventeenth 
century.  In  fact  it  may  almost  be  said  of  it,  in  the  form  in 
which  it  is  now  held,  that  it  is  the  offspring  of  the  eighteenth 
century  ;  since,  in  the  preceding  age,  the  great  majority  of  the 
theologians  who  adopted  the  theory  of  a  covenant  coupled 
with  it  the  Augustinian  principle.  That  is  to  say,  they 
maintained  the  Augustino-federal  or  semi-federal  doctrine 
as  above  defined. 

The  federal  theory  has  of  late  been  defended  chiefly  by 
Scottish  theologians  and  by  the  Princeton  school  in  this 
country.  It  supposes  a  contract  or  covenant  of  the  Creator 
with  the  first  man,  to  the  effect  that  he  should  stand  a  moral 
probation  on  behalf  of  mankind,  so  that  his  act,  whether  sin- 
ful or  holy,  should  be  judicially  imputed  to  them,  or  ac- 
counted theirs  in  law;  and  the  legal  penalty,  in  case  he 
sinned,  be  duly  inflicted  on  them  as  well  as  on  him.  Adam's 
relation  to  us  in  this  matter  is  compared  to  that  of  a  guar- 
dian to  his  wards,  an  envoy  plenipotentiary  to  his  sovereign, 
or,  generally  speaking,  of  an  agent  to  his  principal,  it  being 
understood  that  the  agent  keeps  within  the  legal  bounds  of 
his  commission.  Adam  sinned,  his  act  is  imputed  to  us, 
and  the  penalty  is  inflicted.  We  are  condemned  to  begin 
our  existence  destitute  of  righteousness  and  positively  sinful, 
and  under  a  sentence  of  temporal  and  eternal  death.  Notice 
certain  particulars  of  this  theory : 

(1.)  In  distinction  fi-om  ordinary  covenants,  in  the  cove- 


358  THE   ATJQXJSTINIAN    AND   THE   FEDERAL 

nant  with  Adam  tiie  conditions  are  not  mntnally  imposed, 
but  it  is  a  sovereign  constitution  imposed  by  the  Creator 
upon  the  creature.  * 

(2.)  The  representative  element,  in  virtue  of  which  Adam 
stood  for  his  posterity,  depends  on  the  special  and  sovereign 
ordination  of  God,  in  distinction  from  the  principles  of 
natural  and  universal  justice.  In  other  words,  it  is  not  the 
natural  union  of  men  with  Adam,  but  the  "  federal  union 
which  is  the  legal  ground  of  the  imputation  of  his  sin  to 
them."  f  The  kinship  of  Adam  and  his  descendants  is  a 
reason  why  he,  and  not  another,  is  appointed  their  represen- 
tative ;  but  the  justice  of  imputation  depends  exclusively 
upon  the  covenant  or  the  federal  relation  in  which  he  is 
placed. 

(3.)  Our  "guilt"  for  Adam's  sin  is  simply  and  solely  a 
legal  responsibility.  As  we  had  no  real  agency  of  any  sort 
in  committing  that  sin,  there  is  no  ground  for  self-reproach 
on  account  of  it ;  we  are  not  called  upon  to  repent  of  it ;  nor 
can  God,  for  that  act  of  Adam,  look  upon  us  with  moral  dis- 
approbation. There  is  no  more  propriety  in  regarding  our- 
selves with  moral  displeasure  on  account  of  that  transgres- 
sion, than  there  would  be  in  taking  credit  to  ourselves  for 
the  righteousness  of  Christ. 

(4.)  It  is  said  that  our  inborn  moral  depravity  is  the  pen- 
alty of  that  imputed  sin,  and  eternal  death  the  penalty  of 
this  inborn  depravity.  But  it  is  also  said  that  for  imputed 
sin  alone,  apart  from  this  inherent  depravity,  which  is  its 
penalty,  eternal  death  would  not  be  inflicted. 

Augustine's  theory  rests  on  the  idea  that  human  nature  as 
a  whole  was  deposited  in  the  first  man.  This  nature,  as  it 
came  from  the  hands  of  God,  was  pure.  The  long  battle 
which  Augustine  fought  with  Manichsean  philosophy,  both 
in  his  own  personal  experience  and  after  his  conversion, 


*  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge,  Outlines  of  TJieohgy, 
flbid.,  pp.  328,  240. 


THEORIES    OF   ORIGINAL    SIN   COMPARED.  359 

made  him  sedulous  to  avoid  their  peculiar  tenet.  But 
human  nature,  existing  in  its  totality  in* Adam,  was  cor- 
rupted in  the  first  act  of  transgression,  and  as  such  is  trans- 
mitted to  his  descendants.  The  instrument  of  this  trans- 
mission is  the  sexual  appetite.  This  appetite  is  itself  the 
fruit  of  the  first  sin,  as  well  as  the  means  whereby  the  sin- 
ful nature  is  communicated  from  father  to  son.  The  race 
was  embodied  in  its  first  representative,  and  the  qualities 
which  it  acquired  in  his  act,  which  was  both  generic  and  in- 
dividual, appear,  when  the  race  is  unfolded  or  developed,  as 
the  personal  possession  of  each  individual  at  birth.  As  a 
personal  act,  the  first  sin  was  not  our  act  but  the  act  of 
another ;  yet  it  was  truly  the  common  act  of  mankind  in 
their  collective  or  undistributed  form  of  existence.  For  the 
consequences  of  this  act  all  are  therefore  responsible ;  and 
as  soon  as  they  exist  as  individuals,  they  exhibit  in  them- 
selves the  same  corruption  of  nature — the  same  inordinate 
appetites  (concupiscence),  and  slavery  of  the  will  to  sin — 
which  resulted  to  Adam.  "  This  theory,"  says  E^eander,  * 
"  would  easily  blend  with  Augustine's  speculative  form  of 
thought,  as  he  had  appropriated  to  himself  the  Platonico- 
Aristotelian  realism  in  the  doctrine  of  general  conceptions, 
and  conceived  of  general  conceptions  as  the  original  types  of 
the  kind  realized  in  individual  things."  Into  this  particular 
topic  connected  with  Augustine's  philosophy,  we  do  not  care 
to  enter  here.  It  is  a  fact  that  realism,  either  in, the  extreme 
Platonic  form  or  in  the  more  moderate  Aristotelian  type, 
prevailed  from  Augustine  down  through  the  middle  ages, 
being  embraced  by  the  orthodox  schoolmen,  and  ruling  both 
the  great  schools  during  the  productive,  golden  era  of 
scholastic  theology.  That  the  realistic  mode  of  thought  ex- 
tensively influenced  Protestant  theology  at  the  Reformation 
and  afterwards,  admits  of  no  question.  But  since  it  is  far 
from  being  true  that  all  Augustinians  have  been  avowed, 

*  Church  HiaUyry,  u.,  609. 


360  THE   AUGUSTINIAN   AND   THE   FEDERAL 

much  less,  self-consistent,  realists,  it  is  better  when  we 
speak  of  them  as  a  class,  to  saj  that  they  are  swayed  by  a 
realistic  mode  of  thought  than  that  they  are  the  advocates 
of  an  explicit  realism.  It  should  be  added  that  realism,  as 
far  as  it  affected  Augustine,  was  rather  a  prop  than  a  source 
of  his  doctrine.  The  fact  of  innate  sin  was  so  deeply  lodged 
in  his  convictions  that  he  was  ready  to  welcome  any  plausi- 
ble support  or  defence  of  it  that  lay  within  his  reach. 

There  is  no  need  of  citing  from  Augustine  passages  in 
which  his  doctrine  of  a  generic  sin  in  Adam  is  set  forth. 
They  are  familiar  to  scholars.  Indeed,  after  he  became  es- 
tablished in  this  opinion,  and  through  all  of  his  numerous 
treatises  relating  to  the  Pelagian  controversy,  there  is  a  great 
uniformity  in  his  expressions  on  this  subject.  The  same  set 
of  propositions  and  arguments  appears  and  reappears.  In 
that  great  sin  of  the  first  man,  our  nature  was  deteriorated, 
and  not  only  became  sinful,  but  generates  sinners.*  We 
were  all  in  Adam  and  sinned  when  he  sinned.  In  his  inter- 
pretation of  Romans  v.  12,  he  first  sets  aside  the  supposition 
that  the  in  quo  of  the  Yulgate  refers  to  "  sin  "  or  to  "  death," 
and  infers  that  it  must  refer  to  A(Jam  himself.  "  ISTothing 
remains,"  he  says,  "  but  to  conclude  that  in  that  first  man  all 
are  understood  to  have  sinned,  because  all  were  in  him  when 
he  sinned  ;  whereby  sin  is  brought  in  with  birth  and  not  re- 
moved save  by  the  new  birth."  He  then  quotes  approvingly 
the  sentence  ascribed  to  Hilary,  the  Roman  deacon :  "  it  is 
manifest  that  in  Adam  all  sinned,  so  to  speak,  en  masse.'^''  f 
By  that  sin  we  became  a  corrupt  mass — massa  perditionis. 

So  important  was  this  hypothesis,  in  his  view,  that  his  de- 
fence of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  turned  upon  it.  With- 
out it,  he  knew  of  no  refuge  against  the  sharp  and  merciless 
logic  of  his  adversaries.  Pelagias  himself  was  a  man  of  no 
mean  ability  ;  but  in  Julian  of  Eclanum,  Augustine  found  his 

*  Be  Nupt.  et  Concup.,  II.,  xxxiv. 

f  Cont.  dnaa  Epp.  Pelag,,  iv.,  7;  Conf.  Op.  Imp.,  II.,  Ixiii  ;  De  Pec. 
Mer.  et  Mcmis.,  III.,  vii. 


THEOEIES   OF   ORIGINAL    SIN    COMPARED.  361 

full  match  in  dialectic  ability.  Julian  was  an  acute  and  vig- 
orous, as  well  as  an  honest  and  fearless  antagonist.  He 
seized  on  the  vulnerable  points  in  Augustine's  theory,  and 
pursued  him  with  questions  and  objections,  which  the  latter 
was  utterly  unable  to  parry  except  by  his  realistic  hypoth- 
esis. This  is  strikingly  shown  in  the  Ojpus  ImjperfeGtmn  or 
rejoinder  to  the  second  response  of  Julian.  The  Pelagian 
makes  his  appeal  to  the  sense  of  justice  which  God  has  im- 
planted in  every  human  breast,  and  which  utters  a  firm  and 
indignant  protest  against  the  doctrine  that  we  are  blamed, 
condemned,  and  punished  for  what  we  could  not  have  pre- 
vented. He  lays  hold  of  passages  which  Augustine  had 
written  in  favor  of  the  voluntariness  of  sin,  whilst  he  was 
bent  on  controverting  the  Manichseans.  To  all  this  Augus- 
tine could  only  reply  that  sin  began  in  an  act  of  the  human 
will — the  will  of  Adam ;  that  in  him  was  the  very  nature 
with  which  we  are  born ;  that  we  thus  participated  in  that 
act,  and  justly  partake  of  the  corruption  that  ensued  upon 
it.  He  constantly  falls  back,  first  on  the  authority  of  Paul, 
in  the  fifth  of  Romans,  and  hardly  less  often  on  the  author- 
ity of  Ambrose,  whose  assertion  of  our  community  of  being 
with  Adam  and  agency  in  his  transgression,  had  the  greatest 
weight  with  his  admiring  and  reverential  pupil. 

But  how  vital  the  hypothesis  of  sinning  in  Adam  was  in 
Augustine's  theology  is  perhaps  most  manifest  in  the  way  in 
which  he  treats  the  litigated  question  of  the  origin  of  souls. 
We  may  say  here  that  a  great  mistake  is  made  by  those  who 
imagine  that  creationists — that  is,  those  who  believe  that  each 
soul  is  separately  created — cannot  be  realists.  Whether 
they  can  be  consistent  and  logical  realists  may,  to  be  sure, 
be  doubted.  At  the  present  day  traducianism — the  theory 
that  souls  result  from  procreation — is  accepted  by  theologi- 
ans who  believe,  with  Augustine,  that  we  sinned  in  Adam. 
But  this  is  very  far  from  being  the  uniform  fact  in  the  past. 
Even  Anselm,  like  the  schoolmen  generally,  was  a  creation- 
ist. He,  with  a  host  of  theologians  before  and  after  him, 
16 


362  THE   ATJGUSTINIAN   AND    THE   FEDERAL 

held  firmly  to  our  real,  responsible  participation  in  Adam's 
fall,  and  to  the  corruption  of  our  nature  in  that  act,  and  jet 
refused  to  count  himself  among  the  traducians.  We  must 
take  histoiy  as  it  is  and  not  seek  to  read  into  it  our  reason- 
ings and  inferences.  If  we  do  not  find  philosophers  self -con- 
sistent, we  must  let  them  remain  self-inconsistent,  instead  of 
altering  their  systems  to  suit  our  ideas  of  logical  harmony. 

In  respect  to  the  question  of  the  origin  of  souls,  the  letter 
of  Augustine  to  Jerome  is  a  most  interesting  document,  and 
one,  the  importance  of  which,  we  are  inclined  to  think,  has 
not  been  duly  recognized.*  He  had  previously  expressed 
himself  as  doubtful  on  the  question,  though  obviously  lean- 
ing towards  the  traducian  side.f  But  the  fear  of  material- 
istic notions,  enhanced  as  it  was  by  the  opposition  of  the 
church  to  the  refined  materialism  of  Tertullian,  deterred 
Augustine  then,  as  always,  from  espousing  the  traducian 
theory.  This  fear,  it  may  be  here  observed,  together  with 
the  feeling  that  this  theory  gives  too  much  agency  to  second 
causes  in  the  production  of  the  soul,  operated  in  subsequent 
times  to  dissuade  theologians  from  giving  sanction  to  the 
same  hypothesis.  The  letter  to  Jerome  is  a  candid  and 
memorable  expression  of  the  difficulties  in  w^hicli  the  writer 
found  himself  involved  on  the  subject  to  which  it  relates. 
To  him  Augustine  resorts  for  light.  He  begins  by  saying 
that  he  has  prayed  and  still  prays  God  to  grant  that  his  ap- 
plication may  be  successful.  The  question  of  the  origin  of 
souls  is  one  of  deep  concern  to  him.  Of  the  soul's  immor- 
tality he  has  no  doubt,  though  it  be  not  immortal  as  if  it 
were  a  part  of  God,  and  in  the  same  mode  in  which  he  is 
immortal.  Of  the  immateriality  of  the  soul,  he  is  equally 
certain ;  and  his  arguments  to  show  the  absurdity  of  sup- 
posing the  soul  to  occupy  space,  are  convincingly  stated.  He 
is  certain,  moreover,  that  the  soul  is  fallen  into  sin  by  no 
necessity,  whether  imposed  by  its  own  nature  or  by  God. 

*  Bpistollj  Classis  III.,  clxv.  f  ^^  ^^'  ^^  -^*^->  ^'  ^- 


THEOKIES    OF   OEIGINAL   SIN   COMPARED.  363 

Yet  the  soul  is  sinful,  and  without  baptism  will  perish.  How 
can  this  be  ?  He  entreats  Jerome  to  solve  the  problem. 
"Where  did  the  soul  contract  the  guilt  by  which  it  is 
brought  into  condemnation  ?  "  In  his  book  De  Libero  Ar- 
hitrio,  he  had  made  mention  of  four  opinions  in  regard  to 
the  origin  of  souls — ^first,  that  souls  are  propagated,  the  soul 
of  Adam  alone  having  been  created  ;  secondly,  that  for  every 
individual  a  new  soul  is  created ;  thirdly,  that  the  soul  pre- 
exists in  each  case,  and  is  sent  by  God  into  the  body  at 
birth  ;  fourthly,  that  the  soul  pre-exists,  but  comes  into  the 
body  of  its  own  will.  A  fifth  supposition  that  the  soul  is  a 
part  of  Deity,  he  had  not  had  occasion  to  consider.  But  he 
had  gained  no  satisfactory  answer  to  the  problem.  Beset  by 
inquirers,  he  had  been  unable  to  solve  their  queries.  ]^ei- 
ther  by  prayer,  reading,  reflection,  or  reasoning,  had  he  been 
able  to  find  his  way  out  of  his  perplexity.* 

"  Teach  me,  therefore,  I  beg  you,  what  I  should  teach,  what  I  should 
hold  ;  and  tell  me,  if  it  be  true  that  souls  are  made  now  and  separately 
with  each  separate  birth,  where  in  little  children  they  sin,  that  they 
should  need  in  the  sacrament  of  Christ  the  remission  of  sin  ; "  "  or  if 
they  do  not  sin,  with  what  justice  they  are  so  bound  by  another's  sin, 
when  they  are  inserted  in  the  mortal,  propagated  members,  that  damna- 
tion follows  them,  unless  it  is  prevented  by  the  church  [through  baptism] ; 
since  it  is  not  in  their  power  to  cause  the  grace  of  baptism  to  be  brought 
to  them.  So  many  thousands  of  souls,  then,  which  depart  from  their 
bodies  without  having  received  Christian  baptism — with  what  justice  are 
they  condemned,  in  case  they  are  newly  created,  with  no  preceding  sin, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  by  the  will  of  the  Creator,  each  of  these  souls  was 
given  to  each  new-born  child,  for  animating  whom  he  created  and  gave 
it — by  the  will  of  the  Creator,  who  knew  that  each  of  them,  through  no 
fault  of  his  own,  would  go  out  of  the  body  without  Christian  baptism  ? 
Since,  then,  we  can  neither  say  of  God  that  he  compels  souls  to  become 
sinful,  or  punishes  the  innocent,  and  since  likewise  it  is  not  right  to  assert 
that  those  who  depart  from  the  body  without  the  sacrament,  even  little 
children,  escape  from  damnation ;  "  i  beseech  you  to  say  7iow  this  opinion  is 
defended  which  assumes  that  souls  come  into  being  ^  not  all  from  that  one  soul 


*  IV. — *'  et  ea  neque  orando,  neque  legendo,  neque  cogitando  et  ratio- 
cinando  invenire  potuimus. " 


364        THE  AUGUSTINIAN  AND  THE  FEDERAL 

of  the  first  man,  but  for  ever?/  man  a  separate  soul,  like  that  one  for 
Adam  ?  " 

Other  objections  to  creationism,  Augustine  feels  competent 
easily  to  meet ;  but  when  it  comes  to  the  penalties  inflicted 
on  little  children,  he  begs  Jerome  to  believe  that  he  is  in  a 
strait  and  knows  not  what  to  think  or  to  say.  "  Magnis, 
mihi,  crede,  coarctor  angustiis,  nee  quid  respondeam  prorsus 
invenio."  What  he  had  written  in  his  book  on  Free- Will  of 
the  imaginary  benefits  of  suffering  even  to  infants,  will  not 
suffice  to  explain  even  the  sufferings  of  the  unbaptized  in 
this  life.  "  I  require,  therefore,  the  ground  of  this  condem- 
nation of  little  children,  hecause,  in  case  souls  are  separately 
created,  I  do  not  see  that  any  of  them  sin  at  that  age,  nor  do 
I  helieve  that  any  one  is  condemned  hy  God,  whoin  He  sees  to 
have  no  sinP  He  repeats  again  and  again  this  pressing  in- 
quiry. "  Something  perfectly  strong  and  invincible  is  re- 
quired, which  will  not  force  us  to  believe  that  God  condemns 
any  soul  without  any  fault."  He  fervently  desires  from  Je- 
rome the  means  of  escaping  from  this  great  perplexity  ;  he 
would  prefer  to  embrace  the  Creationist  theory  ;  but  on  this 
theory,  he  sees  no  possible  mode  in  which  native,  inherent 
depravity  and  the  destruction  of  the  unbaptized  can  be  held, 
consistently  with  the  justice  of  God. 

Such  was  the  theology  of  Augustine.  ISTo  one  can  be 
charged  with  sin  but  the  sinner.  He  knows  nothing  of  guilt 
without  fault.  If  there  is  no  real  participation  in  Adam's 
transgression  on  our  part,  he  can  see  no  justice  in  making 
us  partakers  of  its  penalty,  or  in  attributing  to  us  a  sinful 
nature  from  birth.  "  Persona  corrumpit  naturam  ;  natura 
corrumpit  personam."  So  the  doctrine  was  summarily  stated. 
In  Adam  human  nature,  by  his  act,  was  vitiated.  That 
corrupted  nature  is  transmitted,  through  physical  generation, 
to  his  descendants.  They  acted  in  him — in  another — and 
are,  therefore,  truly  counted  sinners,  being  sinfully  corrupt 
from  the  beginning  of  individual  life. 

This  became  the    orthodox   theology  of    the  Western 


THEORIES   OF   ORIGINAL   SIN   COMPARED.  365 

Church.  Where  there  were  deviations  from  it  in  the 
Catholic  Chm'ch,  in  the  middle  ages  or  subsequently,  the 
attempt  was  always  made  to  cover  up  the  difference  and  to 
maintain  a  seeming  conformity  to  the  teaching  of  the  au- 
thoritative Latin  Father.  As  Augustine,  more  than  any 
other  human  teacher,  inspired  the  Reformers,  so  his  doctrine 
on  this  subject  was  generally  accepted  without  dispute. 
The  pages  of  .the  leading  Reformers  swarm  with  citations 
from  him  on  this  as  on  various  other  topics,  l^or  is  this 
agreement  with  Augustine  confined  to  them.  Through  the 
seventeenth  century,  after  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  in  a 
gi-eat  portion  of  the  Protestant  Church,  had  taken  on  a  new 
phase,  still  it  was  to  Augustine  that  all  appealed.  There  is 
hardly  a  Calvinistic  WTiter  of  distinction  in  that  age  who 
does  not  fall  back  on  his  characteristic  definitions,  and  seek 
by  means  of  them  to  fortify  the  doctrine  of  innate  guilt  and 
depravity.  Having  pointed  out  the  essential  features  of  the 
Augustinian  view,  we  might  spare  ourselves  the  trouble  of 
showing  in  detail,  by  historical  inquiry,  that  every  theory  at 
variance  with  it  is  modem  and  an  innovation.  Who  does 
not  know  that  the  old  Protestant,  as  well  as  the  orthodox 
Catholic  theology,  was  Augustinian  ?  But  as  our  main 
design  is  to  explain  the  origin  of  certain  departures  from 
this  ancient  and  long- prevailing  doctrine,  we  shall,  as  briefly 
as  possible,  follow  down  the  course  of  its  history. 

Anselm,  from  his  mingled  devoutness  and  intellectual 
subtlety,  not  less  than  from  his  chronological  position,  may 
be  called  the  father  of  the  schoolmen.  As  a  theologian, 
until  we  come  to  the  Angelic  Doctor,  he  stands  without  a 
rival.  In  his  able  and  ingenious  treatise  on  original  sin, 
which  forms  a  kind  of  sequel  to  the  Cur  Deus  Homo,  he 
says,  in  agreement  with  the  Augustinian  theory,  that  when 
Adam  and  Eve  sinned 

"The  whole,  which  they  were,  was  debilitated  and  corrupted;"  not 
only  the  body,  but  through  the  body,  the  soul ;  and  "  because  the  whole 


366  THE   AT7GUSTINIAN  AND  THE  FEDERAL 

human  nature  was  in  them,  and  outside  of  them  there  was  nothing  of  it, 
the  whole  was  weakened  and  corrupted.  There  remained,  therefore,  in 
that  nature  the  debt  of  complete  justice  " — that  is  the  obligation  to  be 
perfectly  righteous — ''  which  it  received,  and  the  obligation  to  make 
satisfaction,  because  it  forsook  this  justice,  together  with  the  very  cor- 
ruption which  sin  induced.  Hence,  as  in  case  it  had  not  sinned,  it  would 
be  propagated  just  as  it  was  made  by  God  ;  so,  after  sin,  it  would  be  propa- 
gated just  as  it  made  itself  by  sinning. "  Thus  it  follows  ' '  that  this  nature 
is  bom  in  infants  with  the  obligation  upon  it  to  satisfy  for  the  first  sin, 
which  it  always  could  have  avoided,  and  with  the  obligation  upon  it  to 
have  original  righteousness,  which  it  always  was  able  to  preserve.  Nor 
does  impotence  excuse  it " — that  is,  this  nature — "  even  in  infants,  since 
in  them  it  does  not  render  what  it  owes,  and  inasmuch  as  it  made  itself 
what  it  is,  by  forsaking  righteousness  in  the  first  parents,  in  whom  it  was 
as  a  whole — in  quibus  tota  erat — and  it  is  always  bound  to  have  power 
which  it  received  to  the  end  that  it  might  continually  preserve  its  right- 


That  sin  pertains  exclusively  to  the  rational  will  is  a 
proposition  which  Anselm  clearly  defines  and  maintains; 
and  on  this  branch  of  the  subject  he  gives  to  the  Augustinian 
theology  a  precision  which  it  had  not  previously  attained. 
Augustine  holds  that  native  concupiscence,  or  the  disorder 
and  inordinate  excitableness  of  the  lower  appetites,  is  sin- 
ful ;  but  he  also  holds  it  to  be  voluntary,  in  the  large  sense 
of  the  term.  In  the  regenerate,  the  guilt  (reatus)  of  con- 
cupiscence is  pardoned ;  but  the  principle  is  not  extirpated. 
It  does  not  bring  new  guilt,  however,  upon  the  soul,  unless 
its  impulses  are  complied  with,  or  consented  to,  by  the  will. 
To  these  opinions  the  strict  Augustinians  in  the  Catholic 
Church  have  adhered ;  but,  laying  hold  of  that  distinction 
between  concupiscence  and  the  voluntary  consent  to  it, 
which  Augustine  assumes  in  respect  to  the  baptized,  the 
semi-Pelagians,  as  they  have  been  generally  styled  by  their 
opponents,  have  afiirmed  that  native  concupiscence  is  not 
itself  sinful,  but  only  becomes  such  by  the  will's  compliance 
with  it.  At  the  first  view,  it  would  seem  as  if  Anselm 
adopted  this  theory,  and  so  far  deviated  from  Augustine. 

*  De  Concept.  Yirg.  et  Orig.  Pec.,  ii. 


THEOKIES   OF   ORIGINAL   SIN  COMPARED.  367 

Anselm  declares  that  ^s  sin  belongs  to  the  will,  and  to  the 
will  alone,  no  individual  is  a  sinner  until  he  is  possessed  of 
a  will,  and  with  it  inwardly  consents  to  the  evil  desire. 
"  The  appetites  themselves,"  he  says,  "  are  neither  just  nor 
unjust  in  themselves  considered.  They  do  not  make  a  man 
just  or  unjust,  simply  because  he  feels  them  within  him ; 
but  just  or  unjust,  only  as  he  consents  to  them  with  the 
will,  when  he  ought  not."  The  animals  have  these  appe- 
tites, but  are  rendered  neither  holy  nor  unholy  on  account  of 
them.  "Wherefore  there  is  no  injustice  (or  unrighteous- 
ness) in  their  essence,  but  in  the  rational  will  following 
them."  *  This  certainly  sounds  like  "  new-school "  theol- 
ogy. But  we  find  that  Anselm  holds  fully  to  the  propaga- 
tion of  sin  through  seminal  or  spermatic  corruption,  after 
the  manner  of  Augustine.  He  asserts,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  existence  of  a  properly  sinful  nature  which  is  trans- 
mitted from  generation  to  generation.  His  real  theory 
would  appear  to  be,  that  a  wrongly-determined  will,  or  a 
will  already  determined  to  evil,  is  a  part  of  our  inheritance. 
But  he  sticks  to  his  sharply-defined  proposition  that  sin  is 
predicable  of  the  will  alone ;  and  hence  he  denies  that  sper- 
matic corruption  is  sinful.  Sin  is  not  in  semine,  but  simply 
the  necessity  that  there  shall  be  sin  when  the  individual 
comes  to  exist  and  to  be  possessed  of  a  rational  soul,  f  This 
whole  theory  turns  upon  the  distinction  of  nature  and  per- 
son. The  descendants  of  Adam  were  not  in  him  as  indi- 
viduals ;  yet  what  he  did  as  a  person  he  did  not  do  sine 
natura  /  and  this  nature  is  ours  as  well  as  his.ij:  Thus,  no 
fman  is  condemned  except  for  his  own  sin.  "  Therefore, 
'when  the  infant  is  condemned  for  original  sin,  he  is  con- 
demned not  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  but  for  his  own.  For  if 
he  had  not  sin  of  his  own,  he  would  not  be  condemned." 
This  sin  originated  in  Adam,  "  but  this  ground  which  lay  in 
Adam,  why  infants  are  born  sinners,  is  not  in  other  parents, 

♦  De  Concept,  Virg.  et  Orig.  Pee.^  c.  iv.      f  It>id->  ^-^^     X  Ibid. ,  c.  rriii 


368  THE   AUGTJSTINIAN   AND   THE    FEDERAL 

since  in  them  human  nature  has  not  the  power,  that  right- 
eous children  should  be  propagated  from  it.*  This  matter 
was  decided  and  irreversibly  so  far  as  more  immediate  par- 
ents are  concerned,  in  Adam.  It  is  Anselm's  opinion,  we 
may  add,  that  original  sin  in  infants  is  less  guilty  than  if 
they  had  personally  committed  the  first  sin,  as  Adam  did. 
The  quantity  of  guilt  in  them  is  less.  In  this  he  does  not 
differ  from  Augustine,  who  thought  that  the  perdition  of 
infants  would  be  milder  and  easier  to  bear  than  that  of 
adult  sinners. 

The  most  popular  text-book  of  theology  in  the  middle 
ages  was  the  Sentences  of  Peter  Lombard.  It  held  its  place 
for  centuries  in  the  European  universities,  and  there  were 
few  of  the  foremost  schoolmen  who  did  not  produce  a  com- 
mentary upon  it.  It  presents  the  doctrine  of  Augustine  in 
its  essential  parts,  with  abundant  citations  from  his  writings. 
Sin  did  not  spread  in  the  world,  it  affirms,  by  imitation  of  a 
bad  example,  but  by  propagation,  and  appears  in  every  one 
at  birth.f  Original  sin  is  not  mere  liability  to  punishment 
for  the  first  sin,  but  involves  sin  and  guilt.  That  first  sin 
not  only  ruined  Adam,  but  the  whole  race  likewise ;  since 
from  him  we  derive  at  once  condemnation  and  sin.  That 
original  sin  in  us  is  concupiscence.  Our  nature  was  vitiated 
in  Adam ;  "  since  all  were  that  one  man ;  that  is,  were  in 
him  TnaterialiteTP  We  were  in  him  "  materialiter,  causaK- 
ter,"  or  seminally.  The  body  is  wholly  derived  from  him. 
It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Lombard  that  each  soul  is  created 
by  itself,  but  is  corrupted  by  contact  with  the  material  part 
which  is  vitiated  in  Adam.  %  He  gives  this  explicit  answer 
to  the  problem  which  Augustine  declines  to  solve.  The 
law  of  propagation,  says  Peter  Lombard,  is  not  suspended 
in  consequence  of  the  entrance  of  sin  into  the  world ;  and 
the  corruption  of  the  soul  in  each  case  is  an  inevitable  re- 

♦  Be  Concept  Virg.  et  OHg.  Pec,  c.  xxxi. 
f  Lib.  ii.,  Dist.  zxx.   (Cologne,  1576).  %  ^i^*  ^^'t  ^^^'  2^^^.)  xxxii. 


THEOEIES   OF   ORIGINAL   SIN   COMPARED. 

suit  of  its  conjunction  with  the  body.  Augustine,  in  the 
Encheiridion^  had  admitted  that  the  sins  of  more  imme- 
diate parents  as  far  back  as  the  third  or  fourth  generation, 
may  be  imputed  to  the  child,  but  had  not  positively  sanc- 
tioned this  view.  The  Lombard  argues  that  he  could  not  have 
entertained  it  without  inconsistency,  since  it  would  be  in- 
compatible with  his  doctrine  that  the  sin  and  punishment 
of  infants  are  comparatively  light.*  He  does  not  deny  the 
position  of  Anselm  that  sin  belongs  to  the  will ;  f  yet  he  is 
careful  to  say  that  the  soul  on  uniting  with  the  body  be- 
comes ipso  facto  corrupt ;  since  if  an  act  of  self-determina- 
tion be  supposed  to  intervene,  it  would  be  actual,  and  not 
original  sin.  On  the  whole,  his  representations  accord  with 
what  we  have  explained  to  be  the  idea  of  Anselm. 

We  pass  now  to  the  prince  of  the  scholastic  theologians, 
Thomas  Aquinas.  This  most  acute  and  profoimd  writer 
manifests  caution  in  handling  so  difficult  a  theme ;  but  his 
conclusions,  as  might  be  expected,  coincide  with  the  dogma 
of  Augustine.  Aquinas  says  that  "  although  the  soul  is  not 
transmitted,  since  the  virtus  serninis  cannot  cause  a  rational 
soul,"  yet  by  this  means  "  human  nature  is  transmitted  from 
parent  to  offspring,  and  with  it,  at  the  same  time,  the  infec- 
tion of  nature."  :j:  Hence  the  newborn  child  is  made  par- 
taker of  the  sin  of  the  first  parent,  since  from  him  he  re- 
ceives his  nature  through  the  agency  of  the  generative  func- 
tion. No  man  is  punished  except  for  his  own  sin.  We  are 
punished  for  the  sins  of  near  ancestors  only  so  far  as  we  fol- 
low them  in  their  transgressions.  §  The  main  point  in  the 
explication  of  original  sin  is  the  nature  of  our  union  with 
Adam.  This  Aquinas  sets  forth  by  an  analogy.  The  will, 
by  an  imperative  volition,  bids  a  limb,  or  member  of  the 
body,  commit  a  sin.  Now  an  act  of  homicide  is  not  imputed 
to  the  hand  considered  as  distinct  from  the  body,  but  is  im- 
puted to  it  as  far  as  it  belongs  to  the  man  as  part  of  him, 

*  Lib.  ii.,  Dist.  xxiii,  f  Ibid.,  Diet.  xlii. 

X  Sum.  Theol,  I.,  ii.  Q.  Ixxxi.,  Art.  i.         §  Ibid.,  Q.  Ixxx.,  Art.  viii. 
16* 


370  THE  AUGUSTINIAN   AND   THE   FEDERAL 

and  is  moved  by  the  first  principle  of  motion  in  him — that 
is,  the  will.  Being  thus  related,  the  hand,  were  it  possessed 
of  a  nature  cajpahle  of  sin,  would  be  guilty.  So  all  who  are 
born  of  Adam  are  to  be  considered  as  one  man.  They  are 
as  the  many  members  of  one  body. 

"  Thus  the  disorder  (inordinatio)  which  is  in  that  man  who  sprang 
from  Adam,  is  not  voluntary  by  the  act  of  his  own  will,  but  by  the  will 
of  the  first  parent,  who  moves  '  motione  generationis,'  all  who  derive 
their  origin  from  him,  just  as  the  soul's  will  moves  all  the  limbs  to  an 
act ;  whence  the  sin  which  is  derived  from  the  first  parent  to  his  posterity 
is  called  original :  in  the  same  way  that  the  sin  which  is  derived  from  the 
soul  to  the  members  of  the  body,  is  called  actual ;  and  as  the  actual  sin 
which  is  committed  by  a  bodily  member  is  the  sin  of  that  member,  only 
so  far  as  that  member  pertains  to  the  man  himself  (est  aliquid  ipsius 
hominis),  so  original  sin  belongs  to  an  individual,  only  so  far  as  he  receives 
his  nature  from  the  first  parent."  * 

Cajetan,  the  renowned  commentator  of  Aquinas,  under- 
takes to  explain  and  defend  the  analogy.  The  descendant 
of  Adam  belongs  to  Adam,  as  a  hand  to  the  body  ;  and  from 
Adam,  through  natural  generation,  he  at  once  receives  his 
nature  and  becomes  a  partaker  of  sin. 

The  realistic  character  of  Aquinas's  doctrine  appears 
strongly  in  the  argument  by  which  he  attempts  to  prove 
that  no  sins  but  the  first  sin  of  the  first  man  are  imputed  to 
us.  t  He  sharply  distinguishes  between  nature  and  person. 
Those  things  which  directly  pertain  to  an  individual,  like 
personal  acts,  are  not  transmitted  by  natural  generation. 
The  grammarian  does  not  thus  communicate  to  his  offspring 
the  science  of  grammar.  Accidental  properties  of  the  indi- 
vidual may,  indeed,  in  some  cases,  descend  from  father  to 
son,  as,  for  example,  swiftness  of  body.  But  qualities, 
which  are  purely  personal,  are  not  propagated.  As  the  per- 
son has  his  own  native  properties-  and  the  qualities  given  by 
grace,  so  the  nature  has  both.  Original  righteousness  was  a 
gracious  gift  to  the  nature  at  the  outset,  and  was  lost  in 

*  8u,m.  Theol.,  I.,  ii.  Q.  Ixxxi.,  Art.  i.  f  Ibid.,  Art.  ii 


THEORIES    OF   ORIGLNAL    SIN   COMPARED.  371 

Adam  in  the  first  sin.  "  Just  as  original  righteousness 
would  have  been  transmitted  to  his  posterity  at  the  same 
time  with  the  nature,  so  also  is  the  opposite  disorder 
(inordinatio).  But  other  actual  sins  of  the  fii-st  parent,  or 
of  other  later  parents,  do  not  corrupt  the  nature,  as  concerns 
its  qualities  {quantum  ad  id  quod  naturcB  est),  but  only  as 
concerns  the  qualities  of  the  person."  * 

Original  righteousness  was  principally  and  primarily  in 
the  subjection  of  the  will  to  God.  From  the  alienation  of 
the  will  from  God,  disorder  has  arisen  in  all  the  other 
powers  of  the  soul.  Hence  the  deprivation  of  original 
righteousness,  through  which  the  will  was  subject  to  God,  is 
the  first  or  formal  element  in  original  sin,  while  concupis- 
cence or  "inordinatio"  is  the  second,  or  material  element. 
Thus  original  sin  affects  the  will,  in  the  first  instance.  Its 
first  effect  is  the  wrong  bent  of  the  will.  Aquinas's  analy- 
sis of  native,  inherent  depravity  is  substantially  accordant 
with  that  of  Anselm. 

The  Reformers,  as  we  have  said,  were  Augustinians.  As 
the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  was  conceded  generally  by 
their  Catholic  opponents,  as  Pighius  and  Catharinus,  at  the 
same  time  that  innate  depravity,  in  the  strict  sense,  was  fre- 
quently denied,  it  was  on  this  last  element  in  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin  that  the  first  Protestant  theologians  chiefly  in- 
sisted. But  the  same  realistic  mode  of  thought — the  same 
theory  of  a  common  nature  corrupted  in  Adam — ^pervades 
their  writings.  In  Calvin's  representation  of  the  doctrine,  two 
propositions  are  constantly  asserted.  One  is,  that  we  are  not 
condemned  or  punished  for  Adam's  sin,  apart  from  our  own 
inherent  depravity  which  is  derived  from  him.  The  sin 
for  which  we  are  condemned  is  our  own  sin ;  and  were  it 
not  for  this,  we  should  not  be  condemned.  The  other  propo- 
sition is,  that  this  sin  is  ours,  for  the  reason  that  our  nature 

*  Ibid.,  II.,  Q.  Ixxx.,  Art.  iii.,  iv. 


372  THE   AUGUSTINIAN   AND   THE   FEDERAL 

was  vitiated  in  Adam,  and  we  receive  it  in  the  condition  in 
which  it  was  put  by  the  first  transgression. 

These  propositions  are  so  clearly  set  forth,  both  in  the 
Institutes  and  the  Commentaries,  that  it  is  hardly  requisite 
to  prove  that  he  held  them.  But  to  remove  all  doubt  on 
this  point,  and  for  another  purpose  which  will  appear  later, 
we  translate  the  following  passages : 

"  Observe  the  order  here,  for  Paul  says  that  sin  preceded ;  that  from  it 
death  followed.  For  there  are  some  who  contend  that  we  are  so  ruined 
by  the  sin  of  Adam,  as  if  we  perisJied  by  no  iniquity  {culpa)  of  our  own,  in 
the  sense  that  he  only  as  it  were  sinned  for  us.  But  the  apostle  expressly 
afl&rms  that  sin  is  propagated  to  all  who  suffer  its  punishment.  And  he 
urges  this  especially  when  he  assigns  the  reason  shortly  after,  why  aU  the 
posterity  of  Adam  are  subject  to  the  dominion  of  death.  The  reason  is, 
he  says,  that  all  have  sinned.  That  sinning  of  which  he  speaks,  is  being 
corrupted  and  vitiated.  For  that  natural  depravity  which  we  bring  from 
our  mother's  womb,  although  it  does  not  at  once  bring  forth  its  fruits, 
yet  it  is  sin  before  the  Lord  and  deserves  the  penalty.  And  this  is  the  sin 
which  is  called  original.  For  as  Adam  at  his  first  creation  had  received 
gifts  of  divine  grace  as  well  for  himself  as  for  his  posterity  ;  so,  separa- 
ting from  God,  he  depraved,  corrupted,  vitiated,  ruined,  our  nature  in 
himself ;  for  having  lost  the  image  of  God,  he  could  only  bring  forth  seed 
like  himself.  Therefore  we  have  all  sinned,  as  we  are  all  imbued  with 
natural  corruption,  and  so  are  iniquitous  and  perverse."  * 

Calvin  renders  his  doctrine  perfectly  clear  by  the  distinc- 
tion which  he  makes,  in  his  note  on  ver.  17,  between  Christ 
and  Adam.  "  The  first  difference,"  he  says,  "  is  that  we  are 
condemned  for  the  sin  of  Adam  not  by  imputation  alone,  as 
if  the  jpunishment  of  the  sin  of  another  were  exacted  of  us: 
but  we  bear  its  punishment  because  we  are  guilty  of  the  sin 
(culpae)  also,  in  so  far  as  our  nature,  vitiated  in  him,  is  held 
bound  (obstringitur)  with  the  guilt  of  iniquity." 

To  the  same  effect  are  his  remarks  on  Ephesians  ii.  3 
("  we  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath").  The  passage,  he 
says,  confutes  those  who  deny  original  sin  ;  "  for  that  which 
naturally  is  in  all,  is  surely  original :  Paul  teaches  that  we 

*  Com.  on  Roman,  v.  12. 


THEORIES    OF   ORIGINAL    SIN   COMPARED.  373 

are  all  naturally  exposed  to  damnation  :  therefore  sin  is  in- 
herent in  us,  hecause  God  does  not  condemn  the  innoeenty 
"  God,"  he  adds,  "  is  not  angry  with  innocent  men,  but  with 
sin.  Nor  is  it  a  cause  for  wonder  if  the  depravity  which  is 
born  (ingenita)  in  us  from  our  parents  is  deemed  sin  before 
God,  because  the  seed  which  is.  thus  far  latent,  he  discerns 
and  judges." 

In  full  coincidence  with  these  statements,  is  the  chapter 
on  Original  Sin,  in  the  Institutes  : 

These  two  things  are  to  be  distinctly  observed ;  first,  that  being  thus 
vitiated  and  perverse  in  all  the  parts  of  our  nature,  we  are,  on  account 
of  this  corruption,  deservedly  held  as  condemned  and  convicted  before 
God,  to  whom  nothing  is  acceptable  but  justice,  innocence  and  purity; 
for  this  is  not  liability  to  punishment  for  another'' s  crime  ;  for  when  it  is 
said  that  by  this  sin  of  Adam  we  become  exposed  to  the  judgment  of  God, 
it  is  not  to  be  understood  as  if,  being  ourselves  innocent  and  undeserving 
of  punishment  we  had  to  bear  the  sin  (culpam)  of  another ;  but  because 
by  his  transgression  we  all  incur  a  curse,  he  is  said  to  have  involved  us 
in  guilt  (obstrinxisse).  Nevertheless,  not  only  has  punishment  passed 
from  him  upon  us,  but  pollution  instilled  from  him  is  inherent  in  us,  to 
which  punishment  is  justly  due.  Wherefore  Augustine,  although  he 
often  calls  it  another's  sin  (that  he  may  the  more  clearly  show  that  it  is 
derived  to  us  by  propagation),  at  the  same  time  asserts  it  to  belong  to 
each  individual.  And  the  apostle  himself  most  expressly  declares  (Rom, 
V.  12)  that '  death  has  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned  '—that 
is  are  involved  in  original  sin  and  defiled  with  its  stains.  And  so  also  in- 
fants themselves,  as  they  bring  their  condemnation  with  them  from  their 
mother's  womb,  are  exposed  to  punishment,  not  for  another's  sin  but  for 
their  own.  For  though  they  have  not  yet  produced  the  fruits  of  their  ini- 
quity, they  have  still  the  seed  mclosed  in  them  ;  even  their  whole  nature 
is  as  it  were  a  seed  of  sin,  and  cannot  be  otherwise  than  odious  and  abom- 
inable to  God.  Whence  it  follows  that  it  is  properly  accounted  sin  in  the 
eye  of  God,  hecause  there  could  not  he  guilt  {reatus)  without  fault  (culpa). 
The  other  thing  to  be  remarked  is  that  this  depravity  never  ceases  in  us, 
but  is  perpetually  producing  new  fruits,  etc."  * 

That  sin  has  its  seat  in  the  will  and  that  the  wrong  bent 
of  the  will  is  the  sole  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  sinner's  re- 
pentance, Calvin  distinctly  affirms. 

*  Inst.,  I.,  I,  S. 


374        THE  AUGUSTINIAN  AND  THE  FEDERAL 

Turning  to  the  Lutheran  side,  we  find  that  Melanchthon 
defines  original  sin  to  be  the  corruption  with  which  we  are 
born,  and  which  is  consequent  on  the  fall  of  Adam.*  He 
says  further :  "  If  any  one  wishes  to  add  that  we  are  born 
guilty  on  account  of  the  fall  of  Adam,  I  make  no  objection 
(non  impedio)."  f  But  he  strongly  objects  to  the  imputation 
of  the  first  sin,  independently  of  our  native,  inherited  de- 
pravity. Original  sin,  he  says,  is,  in  it?> formal  aspect,  guilt, 
or  the  condemnation  of  the  person  who  is  guilty ;  but  this 
relation  pertains  to  some  sin.  The  question,  therefore,  is, 
what  is  the  proximate  foundation  of  this  relation,  or  as  they 
call  it,  the  proximate  matter — materiale  propinquum.  The 
foundation  of  this  guilt  is  the  vice  in  man  which  is  bom 
with  us,  which  is  called  defects,  or  evil  inclinations,  or  con- 
cupiscence." The  imputation  of  the  first  sin  is  conditioned 
on — in  the  order  of  nature,  consequent  upon — this  innate  de- 
pravity. :j: 

Both  elements,  imputation  of  the  first  sin  and  inherent 
depravity  are  distinctly  brought  out  in  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, as  issued  by  Melanchthon  in  1540. 

Brentius,  another  leading  name,  among  the  early  Lutheran 
theologians,  exemplifies  the  prevalent  realistic  mode  of  rep- 
resentation upon  this  subject.  "  Inasmuch  as  all  the  pos- 
terity of  Adam  were  in  his  loins,  not  for  himself  alone  was 
he  made  an  idolater  in  his  own  person,  but  he  propagated 
idolatry  to  all  his  posterity,  so  that  as  many  men  as  descend 
from  him,  are  idolaters."  "  He  drew  with  him  the  whole 
human  race,  which  was  then  in  his  loins  and  was  to  be  pro- 
pagated from  him,  into  so  great  ruin,  that  it  could  neither 
entertain  right  sentiments  respecting  God  with  its  mind  or 
obey  God  with  its  will."  § 

The  Lutheran  theologians  were  most  of  them,  including 
Luther  himself,  traducians.  Herein  they  differed  from  the 
body  of  the  Calvinists. 

*Loc.  Com.  (Hase'sEd.,  v.  p.  86).  f  Ibid.,  p.  85.  X  Ibid.,  p.  91. 

§  Quoted  by  Heppe,  Dogm.  d.  Deutsch.  Prot.  im  \Qtn,  JaJihr.  I.,  390,  391. 


THEOKIES  OF   OEIGINAL    SIN    COMPAKED.  375 

We  have  now  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of  the  federal 
theory  ?  How  did  the  doctrine  of  a  covenant  with  Adam 
become  connected  with  Augustinism  ?  The  best  histories  of 
doctrine  ascribe  this  innovation  to  Cocceius  the  celebrated 
theologian  of  Holland,  Professor  at  Franeker,  and  then  at 
Ley  den,  where  he  died  in  1669.  It  is  not  denied  that 
germs  of  this  theory  may  be  found  scattered  in  the  writings 
of  theologians  of  an  earlier  date.  It  is  seldom  that  a  theory 
is  absolutely  new  with  him  who  fii'st  gives  it  currency,  and 
with  whose  name  it  is  afterwards  associated.  But  Cocceius 
has  the  credit  not  only  of  introducing  the  method  of  bring- 
ing the  matter  of  systematic  theology  under  the  three  cove- 
nants, but  also  of  engrafting  the  conception  of  a  covenant 
with  Adam,  as  the  representative  of  the  race,  upon  Calvin- 
istic  theology.  There  is  no  distinct  mention  of  such  a 
covenant,  as  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  discover,  either 
in  the  writers  of  the  first  age  of  the  Reformation,  or  after- 
wards until  near  the  time  of  Cocceius.  There  is  no  mention 
of  such  a  covenant  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Form 
of  Concord,  or  in  any  other  of  the  p-incipal  creeds  of  the 
Lutheran  Church.  There  is  no  mention  of  it  in  the  princi- 
pal Confessions  of  the  Reformed  Church,  with  the  exception 
of  the  Creeds  of  Westminster ;  for  the  Formula  Consensus 
Helvetica,  where  the  Covenant  appears,  is  a  creed  of  minor 
importance  and  of  comparatively  insignificant  authority. 
We  do  not  find  the  doctrine  of  a  covenant  with  Adam  in 
the  First  Basle  Confession  (1532),  the  Second  Basle  (or  First 
Helvetic)  (1536),  the  Gallic  (1559),  the  First  Scottish  Con- 
fession (1560),  the  Belgic  (1562),  the  Heidelberg  Catechism 
(1573),  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession  (1565),  the  Hunga- 
rian (1570),  the  Polish  (Declaratio  Thoruniensis,  1645),  or 
the  Anglican  Articles  (1562). 

Perhaps  we  shall  best  satisfy  our  readers  in  regard  to  this 
historical  question,  by  referring  to  one  or  two  authorities  of 
great  weight.  The  first  is  Weissmann,  the  learned  Lutheran, 
who  in  his  history  of  the  church  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 


376         THE  AUGUSTmiAN  AND  THE  FEDERAL 

tury,  has  entered  into  a  somewhat  full  account  of  the  rise  of 
the  federal  theology.  The  federal  method,  he  says,  origi- 
nated with  Cloppenburgius,  a  Franeker  theologian,  and  was 
farther  carried  out  by  Cocceius.  To  these  men  it  is  chiefly 
due.  From  their  time,  the  federal  method  spread  in  the 
Reformed  Church,  especially  of  Holland,  so  that  the  systems 
constructed  on  this  model  can  hardly  be  numbered.  "  Among 
Lutherans,"  adds  Weissmann,  "  this  method  did  not  find 
many  favorers.  Rather  does  Foertschius  think,  and  public- 
ly teach  in  his  Breviarium  Select,  Theol.,  that  this  method 
has  not  less  inconveniences  than  belong  to  methods  previ- 
ously used  ;  adding,  that  the  federal  doctrine,  both  respect- 
ing covenants  and  promises,  as  it  is  held  among  the  learned 
and  publicists,  cannot  be  applied  to  theology,  except  by  an 
abuse  and  perversion  of  terms."  *  In  another  passage,  Weiss- 
mann  sets  forth  the  objections  to  federalism,  which  were 
brought  forward  by  Lutheran  theologians.  Among  them 
are  the  considerations,  that  the  word  covencmt  in  the  New 
Testament  is  very  sparingly  used,  and  does  not  signify  that 
which  is  here  in  controversy ;  that  in  covenants  and  con- 
tracts respect  is  had  to  a  benefit  to  be  conferred  on  both 
parties,  which,  as  far  as  God  is  concerned,  cannot  be  here 
supposed ;  that  man  previously  owed  all  things  to  God,  and, 
therefore,  there  is  no  need  of  a  covenant  and  compact ;  that 
the  Mosaic  economy  alone  partakes  of  the  nature  of  a  cove- 
nant-t 

Under  the  name  of  Cocceianism,  were  included  a  variety  of 
opinions ;  and  the  advocates  and  antagonists  of  this  theolo- 
gian waged  a  heated  conflict  that  agitated  the  Reformed 
Church,  especially  in  Holland.  Numerous  opponents  of 
Cocceianism  who  were  actuated  by  hostility  to  the  Cartesian 
philosophy,  or  to  some  other  real  or  imaginary  doctrine  which 
came  to  be  identified  with  the  name  of  Cocceius,  held  to  the 

♦  Weissmann,  Introductio  in  Memorabilia  Ecd.  Historic  Sacrce^  etc.,  voL 
ii.,  p.  698  seq. 
t  Ibid.,  p.  1103. 


THEORIES    OF    OEIGINAL    SIN   COMPARED.  377 

theory  of  a  covenant  with  Adam.  Yan  Mastricht,  for  ex- 
ample, was  an  Anti-Cocceian.  Yet  it  remains  true  that  this 
last  theory  found  its  way  into  theology,  very  much  through 
the  influence  of  the  most  distinguished  advocate  of  the  fed- 
eral method. 

A  second  witness  respecting  the  rise  of  the  federal  theory, 
is  Campegius  Yitringa.  In  the  text,  and  especially  in  the 
editorial  notes  connected  with  the  text,  of  his  system,  is  a 
very  full  statement  of  the  history  of  this  change  in  theology. 
For  some  time,  says  Yitringa,  it  has  pleased  divines  to  de- 
scribe the  state  of  man  in  Paradise,  by  the  term  covenant, 
which  they  style  the  covenant  of  works  or  of  nature,  to  dis- 
tinguish it  from  the  covenant  of  grace.  "  That  Adam  lived 
in  a  state  of  friendship  with  God,  and  looked  for  a  certain 
good  under  certain  conditions,  has  been  already  shown. 
That  this  state  can  sano  sensu,  be  called  a  covenant,  is  not 
doubted.  /Still  we  must  hold  that  in  the  Scriptures  this  des- 
ignation does  not  clearly  aj[ypear^  unless^  perhaps,  you  choose 
to  apply  Ilosea  vi.  7  to  this  relation  rather  than  to  the  Mosaic 
history  /  so  that  the  Bible  malces  no  mention  of  the  covenant : 
on  the  contrary,  this  notion  is  clearly  presented  to  us,  that 
God,  as  absolute  and  natural  Lord  of  man,  has  treated  him 
as  a  subject,  of  whose  affection  and  obedience  he  desired  to 
make  trial.  And  it  really  seems  that  the  notion  of  a  cove- 
nant pertains  to  the  economy  of  gra/ie ;  both  Scripture  a/rvd 
reason  favoring  this  view.''''  It  is  stated  in  the  note,  that 
the  opposition  to  this  notion  by  Episcopius  and  other  Ar- 
minians,  in  which  they  were  followed  by  Socinians,  stimu- 
lated Calvinistic  theologians  to  espouse  and  defend  it  with 
more  zeal.* 

These  last  observations  are  deserving  of  especial  notice. 
It  would  appear  that  the  idea  of  the  covenant  of  works  was 
carried  back  to  the  Adamic  constitution  from  the  analogy  of 
the  covenant  of  grace,  with  which  theologians  were  familiar ; 

*  Vitringa,  Doctrina  Christ.  Relig.,  etc.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  341. 


378  THE   AIJGUSTINIAN   AND   THE   FEDERAL 

and  the  opposition  of  Arminians  and  Socinians  tended  to 
confirm  and  spread  the  innovation. 

The  federal  system  was  considered,  at  the  outset,  a  soften- 
ing of  Calvinism.  Predestination  was  mitigated,  in  appear- 
ance at  least,  by  this  introduction  of  juridical  considerations. 
Theology  seemed  to  take  on  a  more  biblical  cast.  Hence  the 
federal  method  was  disliked  by  the  Protestant  schoolmen,  as 
they  were  called ;  that  class  of  Calvinistic  writers  in  whose 
hands  theology,  especially  after  the  rise  of  the  Arminian 
controversy,  ran  out  into  endless  hair-splitting,  according 
to  a  dry  and  rigid  scheme,  predestination  being  the  central 
idea. 

But  what  is  the  covenant  with  Adam,  as  distinguished 
from  the  law  of  nature  ?  What  is  the  nature  of  this  posi- 
tive constitution  ?  The  covenant  is,  in  its  essence,  a.  promise 
— a  promise  of  such  blessings,  on  the  condition  of  obedience, 
as  the  rational  creature  is  not  entitled  to  by  the  law  of  na- 
ture. It  is  a  gracious  act  on  the  part  of  God ;  an  act  of 
condescension.  He  couples  with  obedience  a  reward  wholly 
disproportionate  to  the  creature's  deserts — namely,  eternal 
life.  In  this  general  definition  all  are  agreed.  In  regard  to 
more  specific  points  in  the  definition,  theologians  vary  from 
one  another.  The  attaching  of  the  promise  to  a  brief  term 
of  obedience,  for  example,  is  sometimes  regarded  as  one  ele- 
ment in  the  covenant.  But  if  we  seek  for  the  precise  differ- 
ence between  the  provisions  of  the  covenant  and  the  princi- 
ples of  natural  and  universal  justice,  which  were  of  binding 
force,  independently  of  it,  we  find  this  -difference  to  consist 
in  the  magnitude  of  the  promise  and  in  the  appointing  of  a 
special  test  of  obedience.  Inasmuch,  however,  as  this  spe- 
cial test  was  a  revealed  law,  and  might  have  been  laid  upon 
Adam,  had  there  been  no  covenant,  the  substance  of  this 
positive  constitution  lies  in  the  gracious  promise  that  is  con- 
nected by  the  Creator  with  the  law. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  covenant  does  not  of  neces- 
sity affect,  the  substance  of  the  Augustinian  doctrine  at  all. 


THEORIES   OF   ORIGINAL    SIN   COMPARED.  379 

The  theory  of  the  covenant  may  be  accepted  at  the  same 
time  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  held  to  be  really  par- 
takers in  his  sin  and  guilt.  The  breach  of  the  law  and  the 
breach  of  the  covenant  were  one  and  the  same  act.  If  the 
posterity  of  Adam  really  broke  the  law  in  Adam,  they  broke 
the  covenant  also.  Even  on  the  supposition  that  they  took 
part  in  the  transgression  of  the  law,  and  did  not  take  part  in 
the  violation  of  the  covenant,  still  Adam  brings  on  them  no 
condemnation  which  they  do  not  themselves  deserve  by  sin- 
ning in  him  ;  they  merely  lose  blessings  to  which  they  have, 
and  could  have,  no  title  on  the  foundation  of  natural  law. 
I  lay  a  command  upon  a  child.  It  is  a  reasonable  command, 
and  by  the  law  of  nature,  I  have  a  right  to  impose  it ;  and  I 
have  a  right  to  affix  a  certain  punishment  to  disobedience. 
But  I  freely  promise  that  in  case  he  obeys  I  will  grant  to 
him,  and  to  his  brothers  also,  some  high  and  undeserved 
privilege.  Now  suppose  him  to  disobey.  They,  as  well  as 
he,  lose  something  ;  but  they  lose  nothing  which  the  law  of 
nature  gave  them.  Suppose  them,  in  some  way,  to  partici- 
pate in  his  disobedience  ;  they,  too,  justly  incur  the  positive 
penalty  prescribed  by  the  law,  in  addition  to  the  negative 
forfeiture  through  his  breach  of  the  covenant.  They  suffer 
no  greater  penalty  than  they  really  deserve  ;  they  lose  a 
gi-eater  reward  than  obedience  would  have  given  them  a 
title  to,  apart  from  a  special,  gratuitous  promise. 

The  mistake  of  the  modern  defenders  of  imputation  is  in 
ignoring  and  denying  the  capital  fact  of  a  true  and  real 
PARTICIPATION  IN  Adam's  SIN,  which  stiU  formed  the  ground- 
work of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  long  after  the  federal 
theory  came  into  vogue.  They  mistake  history  likewise,  by 
ascribing  their  own  purely  federal  view  to  the  great  body  of 
Calvinistic  theologians  in  the  seventeenth  century,  who  were 
Augustinians  as  well  as  federalists,  holding  to  the  second  type 
of  doctrine  which  we  mentioned  in  the  beginning — the  Au- 
gustino-federal. 

There  is  another  historical  error  of  a  kindred  nature, 


380  THE   AUGUSTINIAN   AND   THE   FEDERAL 

which  pervades  the  Princeton  discussions  of  original  sin. 
These  assume  that  the  old  Calvinists  held  to  the  immediate 
or  antecedent  imputation  of  the  first  sin — that  is,  tq  the 
condemnation  of  men  for  it,  independently  of  their  native 
depravity.  But  with  the  exception  of  certain  supralapsa- 
rians,  the  Calvinistic  view  was,  that  the  ascription  to  men 
of  the  first  sin,  and  the  ascription  to  them  of  native,  sinful 
corruption,  are  each  conditional  to  the  other.  The  first 
could  not  take  place  without  the  second,  as  an  inseparable 
part  or  accompaniment ;  and  the  order  in  which  the  two 
occur,  is  indifferent,  as  far  as  orthodoxy  was  concerned. 
This  has  been  conclusively  proved,  and  the  error  above 
stated  has  been  fully  exposed,  in  a  series  of  learned  articles, 
from  the  pen  of  R.  W.  Landis,  D.D.,  which  were  published 
in  The  Danville  Review.  *  As  we  do  not  care  to  do 
what  has  been  so  well  done  already,  we  shall  have  less  to 
say  here  on  this  particular  point.  But  having  had  occa- 
sion, before  and  since  the  appearance  of  these  Articles,  to 
traverse  a  great  portion  of  the  same  ground,  we  can  give 
an  intelligent  assent  to  this  main  position  of  the  learned 
author. 

The  proposition  which  we  are  now  concerned  to  main- 
tain, is  that  in  the  prevailing  theology  of  the  seventeenth, 
as  well  as  the  sixteenth  century,  even  after  the  covenant 
theory  was  adopted,  the  doctrine  of  participation  in  the 
first  sin  —  the  old  groundwork  of  Augustinism — was  stiU 
cherished. 

(1.)  The  most  approved  orthodox  theologians  of  that  age 
confirm  this  statement.  From  a  throng  of  witnesses  we  se- 
lect one,  for  the  reason  that  he  is  an  acknowledged  repre- 
sentative of  the  strict  Calvinism  of  his  times.  The  follow- 
ing passages  are  from  John  Owen : 

Of  original  sin,  he  says  "  that  it  is  an  inherent  sin  and 
pollution  of  nature,  having  a  proper  guilt  of  its  own,  mak- 

*  In  the  Numbers  from  September,  1861,  to  December,  1862,  inclusive. 


THEORIES    OF    ORIGINAL    SIN   COMPARED.  381 

ing  us  responsible  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  not  a  bare  im- 
putation of  another's  fault  to  us,  his  posterity."  *  Answer- 
ing the  objection  that  the  first  sin  is  not  ours,  is  not  our  vol- 
untary act,  he  refers  to  the  covenant,  but  adds : 

"  That  Adam,  being"  the  root  and  head  of  all  human  kind,  and  we  all 
branches  from  that  root,  all  parts  of  that  body  whereof  he  was  the  head, 
Jiis  will  may  be  said  to  be  ours.  We  were  then  all  that  one  man,f  we 
were  all  in  him,  and  had  no  other  will  but  his ;  so  that  though  that  be 
extrinsical  unto  us,  considered  as  particular  persons,  yet  it  is  intrinsical, 
as  we  are  all  parts  of  one  common  nature.  As  in  him  we  sinned,  so  in  him 
we  had  a  will  of  sinning.:}:  Original  sin  is  a  defect  of  nature,  and  not  of 
this  or  that  particular  person."  "  It  is  hereditary,  natural,  and  no  way 
involuntary,  or  put  into  us  against  our  wills.  It  possesseth  our  wills, 
and  inclines  us  to  voluntary  sins."  §  "If  God  should  impute  the  sin  of 
Adam  unto  us,  and  therein  pronounce  us  obnoxious  to  the  curse  deserved 
by  it — if  we  have  a  pure,  sinless,  unspotted  nature — even  this  could 
scarce  be  reconciled  with  that  rule  of  his  proceeding  in  justice  with  the 
sons  of  men,  '  The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die  ; '  which  clearly  grant- 
eth  impunity  to  all  not  tainted  with  sin.  Sin  and  punishment,  though 
they  are  sometimes  separated  by  his  mercy,  pardoning  the  one,  and  so 
not  inflicting  the  other,  yet  never  by  his  justice,  inflicting  the  latter  where 
the  former  is  not.  Sin  imputed,  by  itself  alone,  without  an  inherent  guilt, 
was  never  punished  in  any  but  Christ.  The  unsearchableness  of  God's 
love  and  justice,  in  laying  the  iniquity  of  us  all  upon  him  who  had  no 
sin,  is  an  exception  from  that  general  rule  he  walketh  by  in  his  dealing 
with  the  posterity  of  Adam."  |  The  grounds  of  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin  to  us  are  :  *'  1.  As  we  were  then  in  him  and  parts  of  him  ;  2. 
As  he  sustained  the  place  of  our  whole  nature  in  the  covenant  God  made 
with  him  ;  both  which,  even  according  to  the  exigence  of  God's  justice, 
require  that  his  transgression  be  also  accounted  ours."  ^  "  There  is  none 
damned  but  for  his  own  sin.  When  divines  affirm  that  by  Adam's  sin  we 
are  guilty  of  damnation,  they  do  not  mean  that  any  are  actually  damned 
for  this  particular  fact,  but  that  by  his  sin,  and  our  sinning  in  him,  by 
God's  most  just  ordination,  we  have  contracted  that  exceeding  pravity 
and  sinfulness  of  nature  which  deserveth  the  curse  of  God  and  eternal 
damnation,"  "The  soul  then  that  is  guilty  shall  die,  and  that  for  its 
own  guilt.  If  God  should  condemn  us  for  original  sin  only,  it  were  not 
by  reason  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  fault,  but  of  the  iniquity  of  that 

*  "Display  of  Arminianism,"  Works,  x.,  70. 

f  •*  Omnes  eramus  onus  ille  homo." — Aug.  X  Ihid.,  p.  73. 

§  Ibid.,  p.  73.  B  Ibid.,  p.  74.  1  Ibid.,  p.  75. 


382  THE   AUGUSTINIAN    AND   THE   FEDERAL 

portion  hy  nature^  in  wJiich  we  are  proprietaries.^''  *  "  The  sin  of  Adam 
holds  such  relation  to  sinners,  proceeding  from  him  by  natural  propaga- 
tion, as  the  righteousness  of  Christ  doth  unto  them  who  are  horn  again  of 
him  by  spiritual  regeneration.  But  we  are  truly,  intrinsically  and  inher- 
ently sanctified  by  the  Spirit  and  grace  of  Christ ;  and,  therefore,  there 
is  no  reason  why,  being  so  often  in  this  chapter  (^Rom.  v.)  called  sinners, 
because  of  this  original  sin,  we  should  cast  it  off,  as  if  it  were  concerned 
only  by  an  external  denomination,  for  the  right  institution  of  the  com- 
parison and  its  analogy  quite  overthrows  the  solitary  imputation."  f 

One  of  the  great  arguments  of  the  defenders  of  immedi- 
ate or  antecedent  imputation  in  our  day  is  founded  on  the 
analogy  of  tlie  imputation  of  our  sins  to  Christ,  and  espe- 
cially of  his  righteousness  to  us.  But  Owen,  like  the  old 
Calvin ists  generally,  supralapsarian  speculatists  being  ex- 
cepted, makes  a  marked  distinction  between  these  various 
instances  of  imputation.  This  is  evident  from  two  of  the 
passages  quoted  above. 

In  his  work  on  justification,  also,  he  says : 

' '  None  ever  dreamed  of  a  transfusion  or  propagation  of  sin  from  us  to 
Christ,  such  as  there  was  from  Adam  to  us.  For  Adam  was  a  common  per- 
son to  us,  we  are  not  so  to  Christ ;  yea,  he  is  not  so  to  us  ;  and  the  imputa- 
tion of  our  sins  to  him,  is  a  singular  act  of  divine  dispensation,  which  no 
evil  consequences  can  ensue  upon."  "  There  is  a  great  difference  between 
the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  us,  and  the  imputation 
of  our  sins  to  Christ ;  so  that  he  cannot  in  the  same  manner  be  said  to 
be  made  a  sinner  by  the  one,  as  we  are  made  righteous  by  the  other. 
For  our  sin  was  imputed  to  Christ,  only  as  he  was  our  surety  for  a  time, 
to  this  end,  that  he  might  take  it  away,  destroy  it  and  abolish  it.  It  was 
never  imputed  to  him,  so  as  to  make  any  alteration  absolutely  in  his  per- 
sonal state  and  condition.  But  his  righteousness  is  imputed  to  us,  to 
abide  with  us,  to  be  ours  always,  and  to  make  a  total  change  in  our  state 
and  condition  as  to  our  relation  to  God,"  etc.J 

The  combination  of  the  Augustinian  and  federal  theories, 
which  is  manifest  in  the  citations  from  Owen,  appears  in  the 
creeds  of  the  Westminster  Assembly.  In  the  Confession, 
it  is  said  of  Adam  and  Eve — 


*  '*Omnes  eramus  unus  ille  homo." — Aug.,  p.  80.  \  Ibid.,  p.  71. 

X  The  Doctrine  of  Justification,  etc.  (Philadelphia  ed.),  p.  227. 


THEOEIES    OF   ORIGINAL    SIN    COMPARED.  383 

"  They  being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  of  his  sin  was  imputed, 
and  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature  conveyed  to  all  their 
posterity,  descending  from  them  by  ordinary  generation." 

In  the  larger  Catechism,  we  read — 

"  The  covenant  being  made  with  Adam  as  a  public  person,  not  for  him- 
self only,  but  for  his  posterity,  all  mankind  descending  from  him  by  ordi- 
nary generation  sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him  in  that  first  transgres- 
sion." 

The  proof -texts  which  were  attached  to  these  statements, 
and  were  printed  with  the  emphatic  portions  in  italics,  show 
most  clearly  that  the  Augustinian  conception  was  side  by 
side  with  the  Federal,  in  the  minds  of  the  framers  of  these 
creeds.  What  they  meant  to  teach  is  clearly  set  forth  in 
the  Brief  Sum  of  Christian  Doctrine^  which  was  issued 
by  the  authority  of  the  Assembly. 

"  God  in  six  days  made  all  things  of  nothing,  very  good  in  their  own 
kind,  in  special  he  made  all  the  angels  holy  ;  and  made  our  first  parents, 
Adam  and  Eve,  the  root  of  mankind,  both  upright  and  able  to  keep  the 
law  within  their  heart ;  which  law  they  were  naturally  bound  to  obey, 
under  pain  of  death  ;  but  God  was  not  bound  to  reward  their  service,  till 
he  entered  into  a  covenant  or  contract  with  them,  and  their  posterity  in 
them,  to  give  them  eternal  life  upon  condition  of  perfect  personal  obedi- 
ence, without  threatening  death,  in  case  they  should  fail. 

*'  Both  angels  and  men  were  subject  to  the  change  of  their  own  free- 
will, as  experience  proved,  God  having  reserved  to  himself  the  incommu- 
nicable property  of  being  naturally  unchangeable.  For  many  angels,  of 
their  own  accord,  fell  by  sin  from  their  first  estate,  and  became  devils. 
Our  first  parents  being  enticed  by  Satan,  one  of  these  devils,  speaking  in 
a  serpent,  did  break  the  covenant  of  works,  in  eating  the  forbidden  fruit, 
whereby  they  and  their  posterity,  being  in  their  loins,  as  branches  in  the 
root,  and  comprehended  in  the  same  covenant  with  them,  became  not  only 
liable  to  eternal  death,  but  also  lost  all  ability  of  will  to  please  God  ;  yea, 
did  become  by  nature  enemies  to  God,  and  to  all  spiritual  good  ;  and  in- 
clined to  evil  continually.  This  is  our  original  sin,  the  bitter  root  of  all 
our  actual  transgressions  in  thought,  word,  and  deed,"  * 

Plainly  we  have  here  the  old  doctrine  of  a  nature,  cor- 
rupted in  Adam,  and  as  such,  transmitted  to  his  posterity ; 

*  Quoted  by  Dr.  Baird,  Eiohim  Repealed,  p.  41. 


384:  THE   AUGUSTINIAN   AND   THE   FEDEEAL 

the  covenant  idea  being  superadded,  but  not  yet  supplanting 
the  Augustinian.  Baxter,  Goodwin,  and  most  of  the  con- 
temporary Calvinistic  divines,  are  full  and  explicit  in  the  in- 
culcation of  this  same  doctrine. 

(2.)  The  Placaean  controversy  and  the  publications  conse- 
quent upon  it,  afford  decisive  proof  of  our  position  that  the 
Augustinian  idea  of  participation  in  the  first  sin  prevailed 
among  Calvinistic  writers  long  after  the  acceptance  of  the 
covenant  theory.  The  French  school  of  Saumur,  one  of  the 
Protestant  academies  of  theology,  had  for  its  professors, 
after  the  year  1633,  three  men  of  marked  ability  and  erudi- 
tion, Louis  Capellus  (Cappel),  Moses  Amyraldus  (Amyraut), 
and  Joshua  Placseus  (La  Place).  Before  them,  John  Cam- 
eron, a  Scotchman  by  birth,  had  produced  some  commotion 
by  his  doctrine  in  regard  to  the  operation  of  grace,  w^hich 
was  that  the  spirit  renews  the  soul,  not  by  acting  on  the  w^ill 
directly,  but  rather  by  an  enlightening  influence  on  the  in- 
tellect. This  was  broached  partly  for  the  sake  of  parrying 
Catholic  objections  to  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion and  election.  Cameron's  theory  did  not  mitigate  this 
doctrine  in  the  slightest  degree,  as  was  admitted  so  soon  as 
his  theory  was  understood.  His  substantial  orthodoxy  was 
allowed  by  those  who  withheld  their  sanction  from  the 
theory.  The  most  eminent  of  his  pupils  was  Amyraut. 
He  boldly  propounded  the  doctrine  of  hypothetical,  imiver- 
sal  grace,  as  it  was  called,  which  was  really  the  doctrine  of 
universal  atonement.  He  maintained  that  there  is  in  God, 
in  some  proper  sense,  a  will  or  desire  (velleitas,  affectus)  that 
all  should  repent  and  be  saved.  The  decree  of  election  fol- 
lows in  the  order  of  nature  the  decree  providing  the  atone- 
ment. The  attempt  was  made  in  two  national  synods  to 
procure  a  condemnation  of  his  doctrine,  but  in  both  cases  it 
failed.  He  successfully  defended  himself,  and  proved  that 
his  doctrine  was  not  inconsistent  with  the  creed  of  the 
Synod  of  Dort.  Cappel  was  a  biblical  scholar,  and  by  his 
critical  opinions  in  this  department   caused  a  commotion 


THEORIES    OF    ORIGINAL    SIN    COMPARED.  385 

only  less  than  that  excited  by  his  colleague.  He  taught 
that  the  vowel  pointing  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament  is  an  invention  later  than  the  Christian  era,  and 
clothed  with  no  infallible  authority  ;  and  that  the  masoretie 
text  of  the  Ancient  Scriptures  is  open  to  amendment  from 
the  comparison  of  manuscripts  and  versions.  Placseus  is 
the  one  of  these  three  disturbers  of  theological  quiet,  with 
whom  we  have  to  do  at  present.  He  was  understood  to 
deny  that  the  first  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  his  posterity, 
and  to  resolve  original  sin  into  mere  hereditary  depravity. 
At  the  Synod  of  Charenton,  in  1644-5,  Garrisolius  (Garri- 
sole),  the  head  of  the  rival  school  of  Montauban,  presided. 
In  no  small  degree,  through  his  influence,  there  was  carried 
through  the  synod  a  condemnation  of  the  opinion  attributed 
to  Placseus,  although  his  name  was  not  mentioned.  This 
opinion  was  pronounced  an  error,  and  was  declared  to  in- 
volve in  peril  the  doctrine  of  inherent  sin  itself,  since  apart 
from  the  imputation  of  the  first  transgression,  this  doctrine 
rests  on  no  secure  foundation.  Placseus  did  not  consider 
himself  to  be  at  all  touched  by  the  decree  of  Charenton. 
He  explained  afterwards  that  he  did  not  deny  the  imputa- 
tion of  Adam's  sin ;  but  only  that  this  imputation  is  inde- 
pendent of,  and  prior  to,  inherent  depravity.  He  distin- 
guished between  mediate  and  immediate  or  antecedent  im- 
putation. The  former  imputes  Adam's  sin  not  directly,  but 
mediately — on  the  ground  of  our  inherent  depravity,  which 
is  its  first  fruit  and  effect.  This  depravity  is  first  imputed 
to  us,  and  then  the  sin  from  which  it  comes.  When  he 
made  this  explanation,  Drelincourt,  the  distinguished  Pastor 
of  Paris,  who  had  been  a  member  of  the  synod  and  on  the 
committee  that  drafted  the  decree,  wrote  to  Placaeus  an  ex- 
pression of  his  satisfaction  and  confidence,  saying  that  they 
had  never  intended  to  condemn  the  doctrine  thus  explained. 
That  the  doctrine  of  Placseus  involved  no  serious  departure 
from  the  current  orthodoxy,  was  likewise  conceded  by  other 
prominent  theologians  who  at  first  arrayed  themselves 
17 


386  THE    AFGUSTINIAN    AND    THE   FEDERAL 

against  him.  While  the  matter  was  in  agitation,  and  be- 
fore Placseus  had  corrected  what  he  deemed  a  grave  misap- 
prehension of  his  views,  Andrew  Rivet,  a  Frenchman  by 
birth,  but  then  a  professor  in  Holland,  prepared,  for  the 
purpose  of  counteracting  the  supposed  error  of  Placseus,  a 
copious  collection  of  testimonies  on  the  subject  of  imputa- 
tion. It  is  a  collection  of  citations  from  standard  creeds 
and  numerous  orthodox  theologians.  His  prime  end,  as  we 
have  said,  is  to  make  it  manifest  by  an  appeal  to  authorities, 
that  besides  native,  inherent  depravity,  original  sin  involves 
the  imputation  of  the  first  transgression.  These  testimonies 
are  very  interesting  and  important  for  the  light  which  they 
throw  on  the  particular  questions  which  we  are  here  consid- 
ering. In  former  articles  in  the  Princeton  Review,  the  mis- 
take has  been  made  of  supposing  that  the  design  of  Eivet 
was  to  assert  the  doctrine  of  antecedent  or  immediate  impu- 
tation— that  is  to  say,  to  maintain  that  Adam's  sin  is  im- 
puted to  us  and  made  a  ground  of  condemnation  prior  to, 
and  irrespectively  of,  native  corruption.  This  was  no  part 
of  his  plan.  If  it  had  been,  his  testimonies  would  have 
overthrown  himself.  For,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  if 
we  count  out  a  handful  of  supralapsarians,  the  general 
theory  was  that  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  and  native  de- 
pravity are  inseparable,  so  that  the  one  cannot  exist  without 
the  other.  Rivet  is  simply  opposing  the  theory  that  original 
sin  comprises  no  element  but  native  depravity.  Whoever 
held  to  a  participation  in  Adam's  sin,  such  as  involves  a 
legal  responsibility  for  it,  might  put  the  elements  of  the  doc- 
trine in  whatever  order  he  saw  fit.  • 
Here  let  us  explain  what  we  consider  the  real  philosophy 
of  imputation,  as  the  subject  was  generally  viewed.  Some- 
times Adam's  actual  sin  was  said  to  be  truly  and  really  ours ; 
but  this  was  not  the  common  representation.  That  sin  was 
the  act  of  another :  it  is  imputed  to  us,  as  far  as  its  guilt 
and  legal  responsibility  are  concerned,  because  we  were  all 
jparticipes  criininis.     In  a  strict  philosophical  view,  partici- 


THEORIES    OF    ORIGINAL    SIN    COMPARED.  387 

pation  is  the  first  fact  in  order,  and  the  first  thing  to  be 
proved.  Take  an  ilhistration.  A.  B.  is  charged  with  a 
crime.  Three  other  persons  are  accused  of  being  accom- 
plices. Tliey  did  not  do  the  deed — with  their  own  hands 
fire  the  dwelling  or  commit  the  act  of  homicide.  But  they 
are  charged  with  being  participants,  in  the  legal  idea  of  the 
term,  and  therefore  partakers  of  the  guilt  of  the  principal 
and  liable  to  the  same  penalty.  His  act  is  imputed  to  them 
by  the  law.  But  before  this  is  possible,  \h^fact  of  partici- 
pation must  first  be  established  ;  for  on  this  fact  their  legal 
responsibility  for  the  criminal  act  depends.  Kow  extend 
the  illustration  and  suppose  that  this  deed  was  the  transgres- 
sor's first  criminal  act,  and  as  such  brought  on  him  a  corrupt 
character,  or  engendered,  as  it  inevitably  must,  a  corrupt 
principle.  A  principle  of  the  same  sort  is  found  to  have 
simultaneously  arisen  in  the  hearts  of  those  whom  we  have 
spoken  of  as  accomplices.  But  as  they  in  their  proper  per- 
sons have  done  no  criminal  act,  can  this  principle,  in  their 
case,  be  regarded  as  truly  and  properly  sinful  ?  Kot  unless 
they  can  be  connected  with  the  original  act  of  wrong-doing, 
as  accomplices  or  participants.  Now  it  will  be  found  that 
Rivet  and  his  witnesses,  when  they  insist  on  the  imputation 
of  the  first  sin,  are  contending  against  the  idea  that  mere 
native  corruption  is  the  whole  of  original  sin  ;  just  as  Cal- 
vin and  many  others  deny  that  imputation  is  the  whole. 
Both  belong  inseparably  together.  One  may  give  the  logi- 
cal priority  to  inherent  depravity,  provided  he  includes 
under  it  participation  in  the  first  sin,  on  which  imputation 
ultimately  rests ;  and  another  may  make  imputation  first,  it 
being  understood  that  participation  is  the  condition  of  it. 
The  fact  (A participation^  by  which  the  first  act  is  both  per- 
sonal and  generic,  and  therefore  ours  in  one  sense,  and  not 
ours  in  another,  is  the  point  of  coincidence  between  both 
views.  The  circumstance  that  participation  is  sometimes 
implied,  rather  than  expressed,  both  by  those  who  give  the 
precedence  to  imputation,  and  those  who  give  the  precedence 


388  THE   AUGUSTINIAN   AND   THE   FEDERAL 

to  native  corruption,  occasioned  some  misunderstanding  be- 
tween them,  and  has  been  since  a  fruitful  source  of  misun- 
derstanding to  their  interpreters.  But,  as  we  have  ah*eady 
observed,  if  we  except  a  few  supralapsarians,  the  fact  of  a 
true  and  real,  though  not  personal,  participation  in  the  first 
sin,  is  everywhere  held.  Not  unfrequently  the  true  philo- 
sophical order,  with  participation  in  its  proper  place,  is  found 
in  the  writers  quoted  by  Rivet.  We  may  cite  Parens  as  an 
example : 

'*  Original  sin,  as  well  in  Adam  as  in  his  posterity,  includes  these  three 
deadly  evils,  actual  iniquity  (culpam),  legal  guilt  (reatum)  or  the  penalty 
of  death,  and  habitual  depravity  or  deformity.  These  concur  in  connec- 
tion with  the  first  sin,  simultaneously  in  the  parent  and  posterity  :  with 
this  difference  only,  that  Adam  was  the  principal  sinning  agent,  admitting 
iniquity,  meriting  guilt,  casting  away  the  image  of  God,  and  depraving 
himself.  All  these  things  belong  to  his  posterity  by  participation,  impu- 
tation, and  generation  from  a  sinful  parent.  Thus  it  is  a  futile  dispute 
of  sophists,  whether  it  was  only  the  first  iniquity  (culpa)  or  only  guilt,  or 
only  disorder,  pollution  or  native  vitiosity.  For  it  is  all  these.  Giving  a 
broad  definition,  you  may  say  it  is  the  fall  and  disobedience  of  the  first 
parents,  and  in  them  of  the  whole  human  race,  in  which  all  alike  (pariter), 
the  image  of  God  being  cast  away,  depraved  their  nature,  were  made  ene- 
mies of  God,  and  contracted  the  guilt  of  temporal  and  eternal  death,  un- 
less deliverance  and  reconciliation  take  place  by  the  Son  of  God,  the 
Mediator."  "  All  are  dead  by  the  offence  of  one  man.  Therefore,  the 
offence  was  the  offence  of  all,  but  by  participation  and  imputation."  * 

Statements  parallel  with  this  of  Parens  might  be  quoted 
in  abundance,  f 

*  Jtiveti  Opera,  t.  iii. ,  319. 
f  That  participation  is  an  essential  element  in  original  sin,  may  be  seen 
especially  by  reference  to  the  passages,  in  Rivet,  from  Musculus,  Viretus, 
Bucanus,  Polanus,  Chamierus,  Mestrezatius,  Whittaker  (Professor  at 
Cambridge),  Davenant,  Ames,  WalsBus,  Junius,  Frisius,  Hommius—who 
says,  "  Peccatum  Adami  non  est  nobis  omnino  alienum,  sed  est  proprium 
cujusque,  quod  propter  banc  naturae  communionem  singulis  hominibus 
non  tantum  imputatur,  sed  a  singulis  etiam  est  perpetratum  " — Lauren- 
tius,  Zanchius,  Piscator,  Textor,  Crocius,  Bucer,  Chemnitz  (the  author 
of  the  Examen.  Cone.  Trid ).  Compare  the  two  Dissertations  on  Original 
Sin  by  Bivet  himself,  Disput.  II.  (t.  iii.,  p.  747),  and  the  Theses  Theolog. 


THEORIES    OF    ORIGINAL    SIN    COMPARED.  389 

What  lias  been  said  will  prepare  us  to  comprehend  the 
Placsean  controversy.  Having  made  a  careful  examination 
of  the  writings  of  Placaeus,  we  feel  competent  to  state  what 
his  views  really  were.  His  great  aim  was  to  confute  the 
doctrine  of  immediate  or  antecedent  imputation.  He  was  at 
first  understood  to  deny  participation,  but  this  misunder- 
standing, as  was  said  above,  he  corrected.  His  opinions  are 
expressed,  prior  to  the  Synod  of  Charenton,  in  the  Theses 
Salmu7*enses.'^  God,  he  says,  counts  no  man  a  sinner  who 
is  not  truly  so.  Either  Adam's  actual  sin  is  imputed  to  us, 
or  our  original,  inherent  depravity.  The  former  cannot  be 
proved  from  the  Bible.  AYe  sinned  in  Adam,  as  we  died  in 
him.  Human  nature  was  in  Adam,  generically  the  same  as 
in  us,  but  numerically  distinct  from  human  nature  in  us  con- 
sidered as  persons.  Hence  our  sin  is  the  same  generically, 
but  not  numerically  with  his.  K  he  was  appointed  to  obey 
or  disobey  instead  of  us,  why  not  to  be  punished  instead  of 
us,  also  ?  If  his  first  actual  sin  was  ours,  why  not  his  act  of 
generating  Cain  or  Seth  ?  The  true  doctrine  is  that  of 
seminal  corruption.  The  sensitive  soul — the  animal  soul — 
is  produced  from  the  parent;  the  intellectual  or  rational 
soul  is  directly  created.  The  soul  on  entering  the  corrupted 
physical  nature,  is  not  passively  corrupted,  but  becomes  cor- 
rupt actively,  accommodating  itself  in  character  to  the  other 
part  of  human  nature ;  as  water,  by  an  appetency  of  its 
OTf^Ti,  takes  the  form  of  the  bowl  into  which  it  is  poured. 

In  the  copious  treatise  on  Imputation,  which  he  wrote 
after  the  action  of  the  synod,  he  develops  his  system  with 
great  fulness  and  likewise  with  great  ability. f     The  report 


de  pec.  orig.  (t.  iii,,  p.  824).  In  the  former,  sections  x. — xvi.  (inclusive) 
and  xxiv.  deserve  particular  attention  ;  in  the  latter,  sections  5,  20,  23, 
25,  27,  28,  29,  83,  34,  42. 

*  Syntagma  Thes.  TheoLog.  in  Acad.  Salm.,  etc.  Edit.  Secunda.,  Pt.  i., 
205  seq. 

f  Placaei,  Opera  Omnia :  Edito  novissima :  Franequer.  De  Imp.  primi 
pec.  AdamiUiispuLy  etc.     Tom  i.,  p.  161  seq. 


390  THE   AUGUSTINIAN    AND   THE    FEDERAL 

tliat  his  doctrine  had  been  condemned  by  the  synod,  he 
says,  had  been  eagerly  caught  up  by  those  unfriendly  to 
Saumur.  *  But  the  terms  of  their  decree  did  not  touch  him. 
The  decree  did  not  condemn  those  who  restrict  original  sin 
to  inherent  depravity,  but  those  who  so  restrict  it  to  inherent 
depravity  as  to  deny  the  imputation  of  Adam's  first  sin.  f 
This  he  does  not  deny.  He  holds  to  imputation,  but  to 
mediate,  not  immediate  imputation.ij:  Adam's  first  actual 
sin  is  imputed  to  us  in  the  sense  that  it  is  the  cause  of  our 
guilt  by  causing  our  depravity,  and  further  as  our  inherent 
sin  involves  and  implies  a  consent  to  his  first  transgression.§ 
In  defence  of  the  propriety  of  using  the  term  "  imputation  " 
to  designate  this  view,  he  appeals  to  Romans  ii.  27 :  "  If 
the  uncircumcision  keep  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  shall 
not  his  uncircumcision  be  counted  for  circumcision."  ||  He 
holds  that  we  participate  in  Adam's  sin,  and  habitually  con- 
sent thereto  at  the  outset  of  our  personal  life.  It  may  be 
truly  said  that  we  were  in  the  loins  of  Adam,  and  sinned  in 
him  and  with  him.^f  The  sin  of  Adam  is  communicated  to 
us  by  propagation.  The  corruption  that  followed  Adam's 
first  actual  sin  is  imputed  to  us  as  passing  over  to  us — idem 
specie — Adam  communicating  at  once  sin  and  nature.**  He 
appeals  to  Calvin,  to  Gualter,  to  Chamier,  to  Eivet,  in  sup- 
port of  his  doctrine  as  to  the  difference  in  the  mode  of  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin  and  Christ's  righteousness.-t-f 
The  analogy  of  Christ's  relation  to  us  proves  nothing  in  favor 
of  immediate  imputation.  Our  sins  are  not  imputed  to 
Christ  as  their  author,  but  as  a  surety ;  but  Adam's  sin  is 
imputed  to  us  as  its  authors.  The  one  is  of  grace,  the 
other  on  the  ground  of  desert.  P;.  But  our  own  faith  is  the 
necessary  condition  of  justification,  just  as  our  intermediate 
depravity  is  the  necessary  prerequisite  of  the  imputation  of 


*  De  Imp.  primipee,  Adami  Disput,  etc.  Tom.  i.,  p.  163. 

t  Ibid.,  p.  176.               t  Ibid.,  p.  173.  §  Ibid.,  pp.  179,  284,  286. 

I  Ibid.,  p.  284.              IF  Ibid.,  p.  188.  **  Ibid.,  p.  198. 

ft  Ibid.,  pp.  195,  198,  201,  206.  U  Ibid.,  p.  185. 


THEORIES    OF    ORIGINAL    SIN   COMPARED.  391 

Adam's  sin.  He  contends  that  his  antagonist,  Garrisole,  ad- 
mits everything  that  is  essential  to  the  Placsean  doctrine. 
For  lie  allows  that  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin  and  of  inher- 
ent depravity  are  one  and  the  same  guilt.  There  are  not 
two  guilts,  or  guiltinesses,  but  only  one. 

Placgeus  claimed  that  his  conception  of  the  subject  is  iden- 
tical with  that  of  Calvin.  He  could  appropriate  the  lan- 
guage of  Calvin  in  the  Institutes  and  in  the  Commentary  on 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  as  a  faithful  description  of  his 
doctrine.  It  appeared  at  first  to  the  opponents  of  Placaeus, 
as  we  have  more  than  once  remarked,  that  he  had  dropped 
the  idea  of  participation  in  the  first  sin  ;  but  this  was  simply 
because  he  dwelt  so  much  on  seminal  corruption  and  the  law 
of  propagation,  according  to  which  depravity  passes  from 
father  to  son.  But  Anselm  and  Calvin  might  have  been  at- 
tacked with  as  much  justice  as  Placaeus.  This  attack  on 
Placaeus  is  an  indication  that  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  was 
in  danger  of  being  removed  from  its  Augustinian  foundation. 

One  of  the  most  active  opponents  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Saumur  professors  was  Francis  Turretine.  Though  he  had 
studied  at  Saumur  as  well  as  at  Paris,  he  allied  himself  with 
the  more  rigid  theologians  of  Montauban.  He  became  the 
head  of  a  party  at  Geneva,  which  labored  to  procure  the  con- 
demnation of  the  Saumur  views  by  the  Swiss  Church.  Op- 
posed to  this  party  at  Geneva  were  Mestrezat  and  Louis 
Tronchin,  colleagues  of  Turretine,  and  other  theologians  of  a 
liberal  and  tolerant  spirit.  Turretine  and  his  party  at  length 
effected  a  partial  success  by  securing  the  promulgation  and 
partial  enforcement,  for  a  time,  in  Switzerland,  of  the  Formu- 
la Consensus  Helvetica^  which  they  took  the  lead  in  framing. 
They  were  not  deterred  from  this  step  by  the  remonstrance 
of  eminent  ministers  of  foreign  churches,  among  whom  were 
the  Paris  pastors,  the  younger  Daille,  and  the  famous  Claude, 
together  with  the  distinguished  theologian  of  Holland,  J.  R. 
Wetstein.  Turretine  and  the  party  to  which  he  belonged 
professed  to  regard  with  charity  and  toleration  the  ministers 


392  THE    AUGUSTINIAN    AND    THE   FEDERAL 

who  differed  from  tliem  on  the  points  of  theology  to  which 
the  Conseiisus  relates ;  they  were  only  anxious  to  keep  the 
Swiss  Church  free  from  erroneous  teaching.  Their  creed  is 
levelled  at  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  each  of  the  three  Saumur 
professors.  Against  Capi^el,  they  go  so  far  as  to  assert  the 
inspiration  of  the  Hebrew  vowel  points  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  to  condemn,  also,  his  critical  views  respecting  the  Hebrew 
text — thus  givuig  their  solemn  sanction  to  the  Buxtorllan 
grammar  and  criticism  !  Having  demolished  Capellus,  the 
Consensus  condemns  Amyraldism — universal  atonement  and 
the  doctrine  that  God  desires  the  salvation  of  all.  Amyraut's 
doctrine  of  universal  grace  is  carefully  defined  and  denounced. 
Then  the  Placsean  doctrine,  or  the  doctrine  which  Tm-retine 
persisted  in  ascribing  to  Placseus,  is  put  under  the  ban.  The 
Consensus  never  acquired  authority  outside  of  Switzerland. 
Within  about  fifty  years  it  was  abrogated.  One  of  the  strong- 
est advocates  of  this  last  measure  was  Turretine's  own  son, 
Alphonso  Turretine,  who  was  as  zealous  in  opposing  as  his 
father  had  been  in  advocating  it.*  If  there  was  ever  a  creed 
which  deserves  to  be  called  the  manifesto  of  a  theological 
party,  rather  than  a  confession  of  faith  on  the  part  of  the 
church,  the  Formula  Consensus  is  that  one.  And  yet  we  have 
seen  this  partisan  document,  with  its  not  only  verbal  but  lit- 
eral inspiration,  according  to  the  grammar  of  Buxtorf,  quoted 
side  by  side  with  passages  from  the  Augsburg  Confession 
and  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  ! 

*  In  a  letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  younger  Turretine 
says  that  the  Consensus  would  exclude  from  the  ministry  many  excellent 
ministers  of  God  ;  almost  all  the  doctors  of  the  first  four  centuries  and  a 
great  number  of  ages  following  ;  almost  all  of  the  Reformers,  a  great  part 
of  the  reformed  theologians  of  France,  and  the  ablest  among  them ;  a 
great  portion  of  the  German  theologians,  and  almost  all  the  theologians 
of  the  English  church. 

This  letter  may  be  read  in  the  Supplement  to  Bayle^s  Dictionary  by 
Chauseppie — Art.  "  Louis  Tronchin,"  Note  C.  The  earlier  letter  of  F. 
Turretine  to  Claude,  ou  the  other  side,  is  in  curious  contrast  with  the  sen- 
timents of  hia  son.     This  may  also  be  read  in  Chauseppie. 


THEORIES    OF    ORIGINAL    SIN   COMPARED.  393 

But  even  the  Formula  Consensus  Helvetica  associates  with 
the  theory  of  the  covenant  that  of  a  real  participation  in  the 
first  sin.  It  affirms  that  prior  to  actual  sin,  man  is  exposed 
to  the  divine  wrath  for  a  double  reason,  "  first,  on  account  of 
the  irdpaiTTOD^a  and  disobedience  which  he  committed  in  the 
loins  of  Adam  ;  then  by  reason  of  the  consequent  hereditary 
corruption,  introduced  at  his  very  conception,  by  which  his 
whole  nature  is  depraved  and  spiritually  dead." 

If  we  turn  to  the  Institutes  of  Turretine,  which  was  pub- 
lished in  the  last  quarter  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and 
when  the  antagonism  to  Placseus  had  produced  its  full  effect 
in  determining  the  form  of  theology  on  this  subject,  we  see, 
indeed,  vestiges  of  the  genuine  Augustinian  doctrine,  but  we 
see  also  that  this  is  well-nigh  supplanted.  Turretine  leans 
strongly  to  the  supralapsarian  philosophy,  which  explains 
moral  phenomena  by  reference  to  the  w^ill  of  God,  as  the  ul- 
timate foundation,  rather  than  his  immutable  justice.  The 
doctrine  of  immediate  or  antecedent  imputation  coheres  with 
that  system,  and  was  espoused  by  its  advocates.  In  their 
view,  it  is  sufficient  that  God  determines  to  consider  one 
guilty  if  another  sins.  His  determination  to  establish  such  a 
constitution  makes  it  just.  There  is  one  word  in  Turretine's 
discussion  of  imputation  which  is  quite  significant  as  mark- 
ing the  doctrinal  transition  which  we  are  attempting  to 
sketch.  He  founds  imputation  on  our  natural  union  with 
Adam,  as  the  father  and  root  of  the  race,  and  on  the  federal 
union  with  him,  our  appointed  representative.  "  The  foun- 
dation, therefore,  of  imputation  is  not  only  the  natural  union 
w^hich  comes  in  between  us  and  Adam — otherwise  all  his  sins 
would  have  to  be  imputed  to  us,  but  chiefly  the  mm^al  and 
federal^  by  which  God  framed  a  covenant  with  him  as  our 
head."  *  It  is  chiefly-^"^flg^w6  " — the  covenant  relation 
on  which  the  justice  and  propriety  of  imputation  are  made 
to  rest.     At  the  same  time  there  are  passages  in  this  author 

*  InsiituteB,  P.  L  Loc.  IX.,  Q.  IX,  xi. 
17* 


394        THE  AUGUSTINIAN  AND  THE  FEDERAL 

which  go  beyond  the  more  modem  theory  of  immediate  im- 
putation and  in  the  direction  of  Augustinism.  He  declares, 
in  arguing  against  Placseus,  that  the  orthodox  doctrine  holds 
to  both  sorts  of  imputation,  immediate  and  mediate ;  imply- 
ing that  they  are  inseparable.  He  says  :  "In  the  propaga- 
tion of  sin,  the  accident  does  not  pass  from  subject  to  sub- 
ject " — that  is,  sin  does  not  go  from  person  to  person — "  be- 
cause the  immediate  subject  of  sin  is  not  the  person,  but 
human  nature,  vitiated  by  the  actual  transgression  of  the 
person,  which  being  communicated  to  the  posterity  of  Adam, 
this  inherent  corruption  is  communicated  in  it.  As,  there- 
fore, in  Adam,  person  infected  nature,  so,  in  his  posterity, 
nature  infects  person."  ^  Sin  is  transmitted — handed  down. 
But  sin  is  not  a  substance,  it  is  an  accident.  Hence  it  inheres 
in  something.  It  inheres  not  in  the  person,  but  in  the  natu7'e, 
which  being  corrupted  in  Adam,  passes  down  to  his  descend- 
ants. Alluding  to  Hebrews  vii.  9 — "  Levi,  also,  who  receiv- 
eth  tithes,  paid  tithes  in  Abraham  " — Turretine  denies  that 
it  is  to  be  figuratively  taken.  It  is  to  be  taken  in  the  proper 
sense.  Abraham  in  that  solemn  action  sustained  the  person 
of  Levi  or  of  the  Aaronic  sacerdotal  order  that  was  to  spring 
from  him ;  and  this  he  did  properly  and  truly,  though  his 
other  relations — his  faith,  for  example — were  merely  per- 
sonal.f 

Apart  from  the  supposed  scriptural  foundation  for  the 
theory  of  the  covenant,  it  is  easy  to  account  for  the  spread 
of  it,  and  for  its  displacement  of  the  Augustinian  idea.  The 
old  difficulty  growing  out  of  the  origin  of  souls  by  separate 
acts  of  creation,  which  was  the  accepted  hypothesis  among 
Calvinists,  was  felt  with. ever-increasing  force.  In  particu- 
lar, the  covenant  theory  suggested  a  plausible  mode  of  meet- 
ing two  objections  to  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  in  its  ancient 
form.  One  thing  which  had  not  been  satisfactorily  explained 
was  the  non-imputation  of  other  sins  of  Adam,  besides  the 

*  Institutes,  P.  L,  Loc.  IX.,  Q.  X.,  xxii.  f  Ibid.,  Q.  IX.,  xxv. 


THEORIES    OF    ORIGINAL    SIN    COMPARED.  395 

first,  not  to  speak  of  all  his  other  actions,  to  his  posterity.  If 
we  participated  responsibly  in  the  first  sin,  why  not  in  his 
subsequent  acts  also  ?  The  other  fact  that  demanded  expla- 
nation was  the  non-imputation  of  the  sins  of  nearer  ances- 
tors, even  of  all  mankind,  to  each  individual.  The  theory 
of  a  common  nature,  when  taken  as  a  sufficient  explication 
of  the  subject,  was  attended  with  these  difficulties.  The 
solution  had  been  commonly  sought  in  the  hypothesis  th^t 
all  acts  of  Adam  subsequent  to  the  first,  as  well  as  the  acts 
of  nearer  kindred,  are  phenomenal,  personal.  That  act  alone 
corrupted  the  nature.  But  the  covenant,  it  was  thought, 
furnished  an  easier  and  better  answer.  The  covenant,  by  its 
terms,  turned  upon  the  conduct  of  Adam  for  a  limited  pe- 
riod, and  one  act  of  sin  on  the  part  of  Adam  forfeited  all  its 
privileges  and  brought  upon  mankind  the  judicial  forfeiture. 
It  is  true  that  the  difficulty  remained  until  the  fundamental 
principle  of  Augustine  was  wholly  given  up.  How  can  man- 
kind, it  might  still  be  asked,  participate  in  the  first  act  alone  ? 
For  it  was  still  the  prevailing  view,  throughout  the  seven- 
teenth century,  among  adherents  of  the  covenant  theology, 
with  the  exception  of  supralapsarians,  that  in  that  first  sin 
there  was  a  true  and  proper  participation.  It  seems  to  have 
been  long  felt  by  theologians  that  the  covenant  would  not 
answer  of  itself,  without  the  doctrine  of  real  participation,  in 
confronting  objections  to  imputation  and  native  depravity  ; 
and  yet  the  two  props  were  hardly  congruous  with  one  an- 
other. When  the  justice  of  imputation  on  the  ground  of  a 
federal  relation  was  called  in  question,  they  fell  back  on  the 
theory  of  participation  ;  but  when  asked  why  all  the  actions 
of  Adam  are  not  imputed  to  us,  they  pleaded  the  covenant. 
The  process  of  supplanting  the  Augustinian  theory  was 
consummated  in  the  eighteenth  century.  But  Calvinistic 
theology  in  England,  having  nothing  but  the  covenant  to 
rest  upon,  fomid  itself  in  the  hapless  plight  which  is  de- 
scribed by  the  younger  Edwards  in  his  account  of  the  state 
of  things  when  his  father  began  his  labors.     To  illustrate 


396         THE  AUGUSTINIAN  AND  THE  FEDERAL 

the  half-hearted  tone  and  helpless  situation  of  the  represen- 
tatives of  Calvinistic  doctrine,  we  have  only  to  refer  to 
three  of  the  most  conspicuous  of  them,  Ridgelej,  Dodd- 
ridge, and  Watts.  Eidgeley  says  that  Adam's  sin  is  ours 
only  in  a  forensic  sense.*  He  considers  how  the  imputa- 
tion of  it  can  be  justified.  1.  It  is  said :  "  If  Adam  had 
not  fallen,  we  should  be  content  with  the  arrangement." 
Xhis,  replies  Eidgeley,  is  not  a  sufiicient  answer.  2.  If  his 
posterity  had  existed,  the  law  of  nature  would  have  directed 
them  to  choose  Adam  for  their  representative,  he  being  the 
common  father.  This  answer,  says  Ridgeley,  "bids  fairer 
to  remove  the  difficulty,"  but  does  not  wholly  remove  it. 
3.  God  chose  Adam  to  be  our  representative,  and  we  ought 
to  acquiesce.  But  this,  Eidgeley  replies,  will  not  satisfy  the 
objector ;  it  puts  the  sovereignty  of  God,  he  will  say,  against 
his  other  perfections.  Eidgeley  comes  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  guilt  of  men  for  Adam's  sin  cannot  be  so  great  as 
the  guilt  we  contract  by  actual  sins.f  Here  he  takes  up  an 
opinion  which  the  schoolmen  and  later  Eoman  Catholics 
had  avowed,  but  which  the  old  Protestant  theology  had 
looked  upon  with  disfavor.  The  punishment  of  infants, 
Eidgeley  thinks,  will  be  the  mildest  of  any.  Accusations 
of  conscience  will  not  belong  to  those  who  have  no  sin  save 
original  sin.  How  we  can  be  properly  sinful  at  birth  is  the 
point  which  Eidgeley,  even  with  the  help  of  the  covenant, 
is  obviously  puzzled  to  explain. 

According  to  Doddridge,  men  are  bom  with  evil  propen- 
sities ;  but  the  difficulty  of  supposing  this  "  is  considerably 
lessened  "  if  we  suppose  that  things  are  so  constituted  upon 
the'  whole  as  that  a  man  is  not  necessa/rily  impelled  to  any 
actions  which  shall  end  iti  his  final  destruction."  %  What  re- 
mains of  the  difficulty,  says  Doddridge,  is  the  same  under 
other  schemes  as  under  the  scheme  of  Christianity.     The 


*  These  citations  are  from  the  Am.  ed.  of  Ridgeley's  Syf^tem,  vol.  i. 
f  Ibid.,  p.  141.  X  Doddridge's  Lectures,  Prop.  133,  SchoL  3. 


THEOEIES    OF    ORIGINAL    SIN   COMPARED.  397 

sin  of  Adam  is,  "  in  some  degree,"  imputed  to  his  poster- 
ity.* The  covenant  with  Adam  is,  "  in  some  measure,"  for 
his  posterity,  t  '^  It  may  seem  probable''''  that  the  posterity 
of  Adam  would  have  been  advantaged  by  his  obedience, 
but  to  what  extent  we  cannot  say.:j:  One  rational  creature, 
we  may  be  certain,  will  not  be  made  finally  and  eternally 
miserable  for  the  sin  of  another.  What  the  state  of  those 
who  die  in  infancy  is,  we  know  not. 

Watts  afiirms  that  the  fact  of  infants  being  the  descend- 
ants of  Adam  will  not  account  for  their  miseries  and  their 
death.  We  must  also  suppose  that  he  is  our  legal  represen- 
tative. Of  this  theory  of  representation,  Watts  naively  ob- 
serves :  "  I  must  confess  I  am  not  fond  of  such  a  scheme  or 
hypothesis."  "No!  I  would  gladly  renounce  it,"  "if  I 
could  find  any  other  way  "  to  vindicate  Providence. §  The 
appearance  of  injustice,  in  one  man's  making  millions  of 
men  sinners,  is  relieved,  "  in  some  meojsure^''  if  Adam  is 
regarded  as  our  natural  head.  Legal  representation  will 
"  do  much  "  towards  removing  all  remaining  appearance  of 
injustice.]!  Watts  tries  to  answer  the  objection  that  we  did 
not  consent  to  this  representation  by  Adam.  1.  A  noble- 
man, when  guilty  of  treason,  disgraces  and  impoverishes 
his  descendants  as  well  as  himself.  2.  God  bestows  bless- 
ings on  children  and  deprives  them  of  privileges  on  account 
of  parents'  sins.  3.  The  appointment  of  Adam,  with  his 
advantages  for  remaining  upright,  was  a  very  advantageous 
thing  for  his  posterity.  Souls  are  separately  created,  but 
are  defiled  by  entering  corrupt  bodies.  This  transmission 
of  sin,  says  Watts,  is  the  greatest  difficulty  in  the  doctrine. 
It  would  not  be  just  to  jpunish  infants  eternally. ^^  The  in- 
fant children  of  wicked  men,  he  thinks,  are  annihilated  at 
death.** 


*  Doddridge's  Lectures,  p.  413  (London  ed.,  1763). 
f  Ibid.,  p.  414.  X  Ibid.,  p.  414.  ^  Works,  vl,  224,  225. 

i  Ibid.,  p.  235.  T[  Ibid.,  p.  309.  **  Ibid.,  pp.  309,  314. 


398         THE  AUGUSTINIAN  AND  THE  FEDERAL 

Into  tills  plight  were  candid  and  excellent  men  brought 
by  their  federal  theology.  Such  timid  theolognes  were  an 
easy  prey  to  their  Arminian  assailants.  Doubtless  it  is  to 
Watts  and  Doddridge  that  President  Edwards  refers,  to- 
wards the  end  of  his  treatise  on  original  sin,  where  he  con- 
futes the  opinion  of  "two  divines  of  no  inconsiderable 
note  among  the  Dissenters  of  England,  relating  to  2i.  partial 
irrvputation  of  Adam's  sin." 

President  Edwards  fell  back  on  what  was  substantially 
the  old  doctrine  of  original  sin.  In  reading  his  discussion 
we  seem  to  be  carried  back  to  Aquinas  and  Augustine.  His 
original  speculations  are  to  support  this  doctrine,  but  they 
do  not  materially  modify  it.  It  is  true  that  he  calls  Adam 
our  federal  head,  but  the  covenant  is  only  "  a  sovereign, 
gracious  establishment,"  going  beyond  mere  justice,  and 
promising  rewards  to  Adam  and  his  posterity,  in  case  he 
should  obey,  to  which  neither  he  nor  they  could  lay  claim.''*" 
What  he  attempts  to  make  out  is  a  true  and  real  participa- 
tion in  the  first  sin.  The  human  species  rebelled  against 
God,  and  that  act,  as  far  as  the  morality  of  it  is  concerned, 
is  ours  not  less  than  Adam's.  There  is  a  consent  to  it,  or  a 
concurrence  in  it,  on  our  part.  The  first  rising  of  a  sinful 
inclination  is  this  consent  and  concurrence ;  and  our  guilt 
for  this  first  rising  of  sinful  inclination  is  identical  with  our 
guilt  for  Adam's  sin.  There  is  not  a  double  guilt,  as  if  two 
things  were  "  distinctly  imputed  and  charged  upon  men  in 
the  sight  of  God."  We  really  constitute  with  Adam  one 
complex  person — one  moral  whole ;  as  truly  so  as  if  we  co- 
existed with  him  in  time^  and  were  physically  united  to  him 
as  the  members  of  the  body  are  to  the  head.  "  The  first 
existing  of  a  corrupt  disposition  is  not  to  be  looked  upon  as 
sin  distinct  from  their  participation  of  Adam's  first  sin.  It 
is  as  it  were  the  extended  pollution  of  that  sin  through  the 
whole    tree,  by  virtue  of   the   constituted    union  of  the 

*  Edwards's  (D wight's  ed.),  ii.,  543. 


THEORIES    OF    ORIGINAL    SIN   COMPARED.  399 

branches  with  the  root ;  or  the  inherence  of  the  sin  of  that 
head  of  the  species  in  the  members,  in  their  consent  and 
concurrence  with  the  head  in  that  first  act."  *  In  saying 
that  this  is  a  constituted  union,  Edwards  does  not  mean  that 
it  is  artificial,  unreal,  or  merely  legal.  It  depends,  to  be 
sure,  on  the  will  of  God,  but  not  more  so  than  does  the  ac- 
cepted fact  of  personal  identity.  It  is  a  divine  constitu- 
tion, but  it  is  natural — a  constitution  of  nature.  The  first 
depravity  of  heart  and  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  "  are 
both  the  consequences  of  that  established  union ;  but  yet 
in  such  order  that  the  evil  disposition  i^  first,  and  the  charge 
of  guilt  consequent,  as  it  was  in  the  case  of  Adam  himself." 
Depravity,  as  an  established  principle,  unlike  the^r^^  rising 
of  depravity  in  the  soul,  "  is  a  consequence  and  punishment 
of  the  first  apostasy  thus  participated,  and  brings  new 
guilt."  Our  share  in  the  first  sin  is  really  the  same  as  if  we 
were  parts  of  Adam,  "  all  jointly  participating  and  all  concur- 
ring, as  one  whole,  in  the  disposition  and  action  of  the 
head."  It  will  be  seen  that  the  conception  of  Edwards  is 
very  like  that  of  Aquinas.  One  original  point  in  Edwards's 
explication  of  the  subject  is  the  careful  distinction  between 
the  first  rising  or  manifestation  of  sinful  inclination  in  the 
Boul,  and  the  same  as  an  established  principle.  Had  this 
distinction  been  explicitly  made  by  Flacseus,  and  by  advo- 
cates of  mediate  imputation  generally,  their  doctrine  would 
not  have  been  mistaken  for  a  mere  doctrine  of  hereditary 
sin.  Edwards  presents  a  philosophical  theory  and  defence 
of  participation.  His  aim  is  to  show  that  it  is  no  absurd  or 
impossible  thing  for  "  the  race  of  mankhid  truly  to  partake 
of  the  sin  of  the  first  apostasy,  so  that  this,  in  reality  and 
propriet}^,  shall  become  their  sin  ;  "  "  and  therefore  the  sin 
of  the  apostasy  is  not  theirs  merely  because  God  imputes  it 
to  them ;  but  it  is  truly  and  properly  theirs,  and  on  that 
ground  God  imputes  it  to  them."  f 

*  Ibid.,  p.  544.  flbid,  P-  559. 


400  THE   AUGUSTESriAN   AND   THE    FEDERAL 

In  New  England,  among  the  followers  of  Edwards,  only 
80  much  of  his  theory  was  retained  as  asserted  an  infallible 
connection,  in  virtue  of  an  established  constitution,  between 
Adam's  first  sin  and  the  existence  of  a  sinful  inclination  in 
each  of  his  descendants.  This  sinful  inclination  was  re- 
garded not  as  a  real  participation,  but  only  as  a  virtual  or 
constructive  consent  to  the  first  sin  of  Adam.  The  doctrine 
of  mere  inherited  depravity  on  the  one  hand,  and  Hopkin- 
sianism  and  the  new-school  theology  on  the  other,  were  the 
natural  consequence.  Imputation  of  Adam's  sin  was  given 
up.  On  the  contrary,  Calvinists  of  the  Princeton  school 
planted  themselves  on  the  federal  theory,  took  up  the  doc- 
trine of  Immediate  Imputation,  which  had  brought  the 
English  Calvinism  of  the  eighteenth  century  into  such  diffi- 
culties, and  making  Turretine  their  text-book,  waged  war 
upon  the  Isqw  England  views,  not  wholly  sparing  Edwards 
himself. 

When  we  direct  our  attention  to  the  Eoman  Catholic  the- 
ology we  observe  that  the  doctrine  of  immediate  imputation, 
which  Abelard  and  certain  nominalists  broached  in  the  mid- 
dle ages,  has  found  little  favor  in  later  times,  except  among 
latitudinarians.  The  orthodox  Catholic  theology — the  rep- 
resentatives of  Augustinism — have  regarded  the  whole  fed- 
eral theory  with  distrust  and  aversion.  It  is  remarkable 
that  in  the  Council  of  Trent  the  federal  theory  was  brought 
forward  by  Catharinus,  the  opponent  of  Calvin,  and  a  man 
who  was  all  his  life  suspected  in  his  own  church  of  being 
loose  in  his  theology  in  relation  to  the  points  which  sepa- 
rated Augustine  from  Pelagius.  According  to  Father  Paul, 
Catharinus  explained  his  opinion  to  be  that  as  "  God  made 
a  covenant  with  Abraham  and  all  his  posterity,  when  he 
made  him  father  of  the  faithful,  so  when  he  gave  original 
righteousness  to  Adam  and  to  all  mankind,  he  made  him 
seal  an  obligation  in  the  name  of  all,  to  keep  it  for  himself 
and  them,  observing  the  commandments  ;  which,  because  he 
transgressed,  he  lost,  as  well  for  others  as  for  himself,  and 


THEORIES   OF   ORIGINAL   SIN   COMPARED.  401 

incurred  the  punishments  also  for  them."  *  Against  this 
opinion  the  celebrated  champion  of  orthodoxy,  Dominicus 
"Soto,  protested,  f  He  distinguished  between  the  actual  sin 
of  Adam  ^and  the  principle  or  habit  "  bred  in  the  mind  of 
the  actor."  "  This  habitual  quality,"  remaining  in  Adam^ 
"  passed  into  the  posterity,  and  is  transfused  as  proper  unto 
every  one."  "  He  compareth,"  says  Father  Paul,  "  original 
sin  to  crookedness,  as  it  is  indeed  a  spiritual  obliquity ;  for 
the  whole  nature  of  man  being  in  Adam,  when  he  made 
himself  crooked  by  transgressing  the  precept,  the  whole  na- 
ture of  man,  and,  by  consequent,  every  particular  person  re- 
mained crooked,  not  by  the  curvity  of  Adam,  but  by  his  own, 
by  which  he  is  truly  crooked  and  a  sinner,  until  he  be 
straightened  by  the  grace  of  God."  Afterwards,  Father 
Paul  observes  that  the  opinion  of  Catharinus  was  best  un- 
derstood, "  because  it  was  expressed  by  a  political  conceit  of 
a  bargain  made  by  one  for  his  posterity,  which  being  trans- 
gressed, they  are  all  undoubtedly  bound ;  and  many  of  the 
fathers  did  favor  that ;  but  perceiving  the  contradiction  of 
the  other  divines,  they  durst  not  receive  it."  In  his  theo- 
logical writings,  composed  after  the  council,  Soto  opposed 
the  covenant  theory  and  defended  pure  Augustinism.  Bel- 
larmine  declares  that  the  council  intended  to  condemn  the 
doctrine  of  Pighius  and  Catharinus,  who  denied  that  innate 
depravity  is  properly  sinful.  This  great  expounder  of  Cath- 
olic theology  maintains  that  the  first  sin  of  Adam  was  gene- 
ric. "  There  could  not  be  anything  in  infants,"  he  says,  "  of 
the  nature  of  sin,  unless  they  were  participant  in  the  first  sin 
of  Adam."  j^  This  sin  is  imputed  to  all,  who  are  born  of 
Adam,  since  all,  existing  in  the  loins  of  Adam,  in  him  and 
by  him  sinned,  w^hen  he  sinned."  § 

By  common  consent  of  Protestants,  Jansenius  is  considered 
to  have  been,  on  the  Catholic  side  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 

♦  We  quote  from  the  Old  English  translation  of  Father  Paul's  History 
of  the  Council  of  Trent,  pp.  175, 177.  f  Ibid. ,  p.  176. 

X  Vol.  iii. ,  Cont.  ii. ,  Lib.  v. ,  c.  xviii.  §  Ibid. ,  c.  xiii. 


402  THE   AUGUSTINIAN   AND   THE   FEDERAL 

tuiy,  the  most  faithful  follower  of  Augustine.  He  read  all 
the  writings  of  Augustine  seventeen  times,  and  his  copious 
work  on  this  father  was  the  fruit  of  his  devoted  labors. 
"Now,  Jansenius  opposes  the  covenant  theory  with  aU  his 
might,  as  being  at  war  with  Augustinian  theology.  Recent 
theologians  have  invented  that  theory,  he  says.  They  could 
not  have  excogitated  anything  more  foreign  to  Augustine's 
thoughts,  more  absurd  in  relation  to  his  system,  or  more  re- 
pugnant to  his  principles.  *  Augustine  held  that  the  great- 
ness of  the  first  sin  is  the  cause  of  the  corruption  of  nature 
and  of  the  transmission  of  corruption ;  and  so  that  "  all 
things  take  place  by  no  agreement,  but  happen  from  the  na- 
ture of  things,  because  the  children  are  said  to  have  sinned 
in  the  parent  and  to  have  been  one  with  him."  f  "  In  Au- 
gustine's view  nothing  else  is  original  sin,  but  concupiscence 
with  guilt."  Jansenius  declares  that  nobody  ever  had  so 
wild  a  dream  as  to  imagine  that  this  great  depravation  of 
human  nature  comes  upon  men  from  some  agreement  made 
by  God  with  their  parents,  or  is  propagated  by  the  positive 
law  or  wiU  of  God.  :j:  Augustine,  he  says,  never  resorted  to 
any  compacts  or  positive  laws  of  God  for  the  explication  of 
this  subject.  It  was  through  the  nature  of  things,  in  Augus- 
tine's view,  that  the  first  great  sin,  together  with  human  na- 
ture, pass  to  the  posterity  of  Adam.  §  We  could  quote  from 
Jansenius  pages  of  argument  and  warm  denunciation  directed 
against  the  federal  theory.  It  is  not  merely  the  idea  of  im- 
putation without  inherent  sin — the  notion  of  Pighius  and 
Catharinus — that  he  opposes,  but  also  the  whole  conception 
of  a  covenant  with  Adam,  entailing  a  curse  on  his  posterity. 
The  significance  and  importance  of  his  sentiments  on  this 
subject,  theological  scholars  will  at  once  comprehend.  He 
considers  the  federal  hypothesis  an  innovation,  hostile  to  the 
spirit  of  the  Augustinian  doctrine. 

*  Jansenius,  Auguatimis  (Louvain,  1640),  t.  ii.,  p.  208. 
t  Ibid.,  p.  211.  X  Ibid.,  p.  247.  §  Ibid.,  p.  246. 


THEORIES    OF   ORIGINAL   SIN   COMPARED.  403 

Here  we  pause  in  this  historical  investigation.  It  is  clear 
to  us,  first,  that  the  prevailing  doctrine,  down  to  a  compara- 
tively recent  period,  made  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  and 
inherent  depravity,  each  the  inseparable  condition  of  the 
other,  instead  of  regarding  the  latter  merely  as  the  penal 
consequence  of  the  former ;  and,  secondly,  that  real  partici- 
pation in  the  first  sin  formed  the  groimdwork  of  imputation, 
the  covenant  hypothesis  without  participation  being  a  later 
notion,  tlie  offspring  of  the  false  and  untenable  philosophy 
which  supralapsarian  theologians  vainly  endeavored  to  es- 
tablish in  the  Reformed  Church. 

We  subjoin  a  brief  statement  of  objections  to  the  theory 
of  immediate  imputation  on  the  federal  basis. 

1.  The  Scriptural  argument  for  this  theory  will  not  bear 
examination.  The  relation  to  God  under  which  Adam  was 
placed  is  never  called  in  the  Scriptures  a  covenant.  The  ad- 
vocates of  the  theory  pretend  to  adduce  but  one  passage 
where  it  is  thus  called — Hosea  vi.  7 ;  but  this  passage  is  cor- 
rectly rendered  in  our  version  as  follows :  "  For  they  like 
men  " — not  like  Adam,  which  is  the  other  rendering — "  have 
transgressed  the  covenant."  The  offence  of  Ephraim  and 
Judah  is  an  example  of  a  common  species  of  depravity.  It 
is  not  claimed  that  the  teachings  of  Jesus  Christ  contain  any 
reference  to  a  covenant  with  Adam  or  to  a  vicarious  office 
such  as  the  doctrine  of  immediate  imputation  attributes  to 
him.  If  this  doctrine  is  one  of  so  vast  consequence  in  the 
Christian  system,  it  is  astonishing  that  the  founder  of  Chris- 
tianity should  make  no  mention  of  it.  The  circumstance 
that  the  same  penalties  which  are  threatened  to  Adam,  like- 
wise fall  upon  his  descendants,  proves  nothing  to  the  purpose. 
In  whatever  way  they  become  sinful,  these  penalties  are  ap- 
propriately inflicted  on  them.  If  it  is  said  by  Paul  (1  Cor. 
XV.  21,  22,  47),  that  all  die ''  in  Adam,"  this  is  not  saying 
that  their  death  is  the  penalty  of  his  sin.  They  die  because 
they  are  the  children  of  Adam,  but  how  this  takes  place,  or 
the  causal  nexus  between  the  two  facts,  is  not  given.     The 


404  THE   AUGUSTINIAN  AND   THE   FEDERAL 

real  stronghold — ^if  it  can  be  called  a  stronghold — of  the  im- 
putation theory  is  Romans  v.  12  seq.  We  have  not  room  to 
examine  this  passage  in  detaU.  The  stress  of  the  argument 
of  the  advocates  of  this  theory  rests  finally  on  the  apostle's 
statement  that  "  condemnation  ^'  comes  upon  men  "  by  one 
that  sinned  "  and  "  by  the  offence  of  one,"  or  by  one  offence. 
But  the  apostle's  declaration  holds  good,  if  the  transgression 
of  Adam  brought  mankind  into  a  state  of  condemnation, 
whether  this  result  was  through  their  own  depravity  or  not. 
The  great  thought  of  Paul  is  that  Adam  ruined  the  race, 
and  Christ  saved  it.  Our  condemnation  is  traceable  to  one, 
our  justification  to  the  other.  Intermediate  agencies  and 
proximate  causes  are  left  out  of  consideration.  The  manner 
in  which  the  advocates  of  immediate  imputation  interpret 
these  words  of  Paul  reminds  one  of  Luther's  iteration  of  the 
hoG  est  meuni  corpus  in  his  controversy  with  Zwingle.  It  is 
an  example  of  that  rather  frigid  style  of  exegesis,  by  which 
transubstantiation  and  consubstantiation  become  dogmas  in 
large  portions  of  the  church. 

2.  The  extreme  form  of  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  which 
is  in  vogue  at  present,  involves  its  advocates  in  the  inconsist- 
ency of  supposing  that  there  is  a  sin  for  which  we  are  respon- 
sible in  the  full  legal  sense — as  truly  so  as  was  its  perpetra- 
tor— ^but  which  does  not  bring  on  us,  of  itself,  eternal  pun- 
ishment. Calvin  and  most  of  the  old  theologians  were  con- 
sistent in  holding  that  the  penalty  could  not  be  inflicted  on 
us  for  Adam's  sin  alone,  apart  from  inherent  depravity  ;  for 
they  held  that  imputation  is  impossible  apart  from  inherent 
depravity.  But  the  Princeton  writers,  separating  the  one 
from  the  other  and  making  inherent  depravity  merely  the 
punishment  of  sin  imputed,  still  make  this  depravity  the 
necessary  condition  of  the  infliction  of  eternal  death.  Why  ? 
Did  not  Adam  deserve  this  penalty  for  that  first  act  alone  ? 
Is  not  our  responsibility  for  it  as  great  as  his  ?  Why  would 
it  not  be  just  to  inflict  eternal  death  upon  us  for  imputed  sin 
alone  ?     What  a  strange  theory  !     Here  is  a  sin  in  which  we 


THEORIES   OF   ORIGINAL   SIN   COMPAJIED.  405 

had  no  real  part,  for  whicli  we  are  not  regarded  with  moral 
disapprobation,  which  we  are  not  bound  to  repent  of,  and 
which  does  not  bring  on  us,  as  a  direct  penal  consequence, 
eternal  death ;  and  yet  it  is  a  sin  for  which  we  ai-e  legally 
responsible — as  truly  so  as  the  individual  who  committed 
it! 

3.  The  covenant  hypothesis,  regarded  as  a  solution  of  the 
problem  of  sin,  wears  a  superficial  character.  It  is  one  of 
those  artificial  solutions  of  great  moral  and  social  problems, 
which  remove  difficulties  in  too  easy  a  manner,  at  the  same 
time  that  they  raise  difficulties  greater  than  those  which  they 
remove.  There  is  a  striking  analogy  between  this  hypothe- 
sis and  the  social  compact  theory  of  government,  which  was 
the  product  of  the  same  age.  A  covenant  between  individ- 
uals was  declared  to  be  the  foundation  of  civil  society,  and 
the  obligation  of  civil  obedience  was  made  to  rest  on  this 
imaginary  contract.  Certain  perplexing  questions  appeared 
to  be  solved  by  this  hypothesis,  which  was  a  mere  legal  fic- 
tion, and  accordingly  its  mischievous  bearing  in  other  re- 
spects was  overlooked. 

The  theoretical  defences  of  the  federal  h}^othesis  are 
weak  enough.  It  is  objected  to  the  doctrine  that  men  infal- 
libly become  sinners  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  through 
a  sovereign  constitution — the  idea  of  Kew  England  theology 
— ^that  this  doctrine  attributes  too  much  to  the  will  of  God. 
We  will  not  here  discuss  the  New  England  view ;  but, 
strange  to  say,  this  objection  comes  from  those  who  found 
the  covenant  itself  on  nothing  better.  They  hold  that  men 
are  judicially  condemned  to  be  sinners,  and  to  endure  the 
penalty  of  sin ;  but  when  we  ask  for  the  ground  of  this  con- 
demnation we  are  referred  to  the  covenant,  and  when  we 
inquire  into  the  justice  of  the  covenant,  we  are  thrown  back 
on  the  sovereignty  of  God.  They  seek  to  remove  a  diffi- 
culty by  creating  another,  only  one  step  distant,  of  a  more 
formidable  character.  It  is  better,  with  Augustine,  to  leave 
some  questions  mianswered  than  to  solve  them  by  inventing 


406        THE  ArGUSTINIAN  AND  THE  FEDERAL 

hypotheses  which  are  in  open  conflict  with  proper  concep- 
tions of  the  divine  justice. 

The  most  plausible  defence  of  the  covenant  hypothesis  is 
that  founded  on  sdentia  media,  God  foresaw  that  the  de- 
scendants of  Adam,  if  they  were  to  be  tried  individually, 
would  not  do  better  than  he,  his  inducements  to  right  action 
being  greater  than  theirs  would  be ;  and,  therefore,  deter- 
mhied  to  treat  them  judicially  according  to  his  conduct. 
The  scientia  media,  in  such  applications  of  it,  is  an  exploded 
principle.  It  might  as  well  be  argued  that  because  God 
foresaw  that  Adam  and  his  posterity  would  be  sinners,  it 
would  be  just  for  him  to  condemn  them  all  and  punish  them 
eternally,  without  any  probation  whatsoever. 

The  analogy  of  Christ's  work  is  pleaded  in  support  of  the 
theory  in  question.  But  Owen,  as  we  have  seen,  makes  the 
relation  of  Christ,  as  the  author  of  benefits  to  his  people,  an 
exception  to  the  ordinary  rule  of  the  divine  administration, 
and  a  case  by  itself.  Not  to  insist  on  the  propriety  of  this 
distinction,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  argument  from  the 
analogy  of  Christ's  work  depends  wholly  on  the  idea  that 
distributive  justice  is  satisfied  by  the  atonement,  so  that  the 
believer,  apart  from  the  consideration  of  the  promise  to  him, 
could  not  be  justly  condemned.  To  identify  the  scriptural 
and  orthodox  conception  of  expiation  with  the  last  proposi- 
tion is  simply  preposterous. 

4.  The  doctrine  of  immediate  imputation,  in  the  form  in 
which  it  is  now  held,  involves,  by  necessary  inference,  the 
proposition  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin.  It  is  held  that, 
on  account  of  Adam's  sin,  God  withdraws  from  the  soul, 
from  the  moment  of  its  creation — that  is,  never  imparts  to 
the  soul — the  grace,  without  which  it  cannot  but  sin.  It  is 
thus  rendered  sinful,  prior  to  moral  choice — prior  to  the 
knowledge  of  moral  distinctions.  It  is  vain  to  urge  that  the 
act  of  God  is  of  a  negative  character.  What  he  does  ren- 
ders the  effect  inevitable.  It  is  vain  to  say  that  the  faculties 
of  agency  remain.     By  the  supposition,  it  is  just  as  impossi- 


THEOIilES   OF   ORIGINAL   SIN   COMPAEED.  407 

ble,  from  the  moment  of  creation,  to  be  holy  as  to  see  with- 
out light  or  to  breathe  without  air.  To  suppose  a  man  to  be 
holy  is  even  more  absurd,  for,  on  the  withdrawal  of  grace, 
the  powers  of  the  soul  necessarily  fall  into  disorder  and  cor- 
ruption. We  do  not  see  how  the  conclusion  can  be  avoided 
that  God  is  the  author  of  sin. 

5.  The  imputation  theory  makes  sin  the  penalty  of  sin,  in 
a  way  which  the  church  has  never  countenanced.  I  am  con- 
demned to  be  sinful,  as  a  punishment  for  the  sin  of  Adam, 
who  is  called  my  representative.  I  had  no  real  agency,  it  is 
asserted,  in  that  sin.  But  sin  is  inflicted  on  me  as  a  penalty 
for  another's  act.  ]^ow,  this  theory  is  totally  different  from 
the  old  view  that  a  wrong-doer  fastens  on  himself  a  habit 
which  becomes  too  strong  for  him  to  cast  off ;  so  that  his 
sin  becomes  his  punishment.  The  theory  of  immediate  im- 
putation makes  sin  to  be  inflicted  on  them  who  are  not 
wrong-doers.  They  are  sinful  in  pursuance  of  an  ante-natal 
condemnation — ante-natal,  and  of  an  earlier  date  than  their 
creation.  The  Augustinian  doctrine  holds  that  native  de- 
pravity is  both  sin  and  punishment;  but  it  professes  to 
bring  this  birth-sin  under  the  great  law  of  habit,  to  which 
we  have  just  adverted.  We  sinned  in  Adam  and  brought 
on  ourselves,  as  individuals,  the  sinful  bondage  to  evil  in 
which  we  are  born.  It  is  thus  widely  at  variance  with  the 
modern  theory,  according  to  which  we  are  slaves  of  sin  for 
an  act  which  we  are  not  to  blame  for  and  with  which  we 
had  nothing  to  do.  The  agency  of  God  in  relation  to  the 
existence  of  sin  is  discussed  by  President  Edwards  in  his 
treatise  on  original  sin  ;  and  he  makes  the  precise  distinc- 
tion which  we  have  made  here.  The  continuance  of  a  state 
of  depravity  according  to  a  settled  course  of  nature,  is  one 
thing ;  the  origination  of  such  a  state  in  an  individual  is 
quite  another  thing.  This  is  to  charge  Adam's  sin  to  his 
posterity.  The  statement  and  admission  of  this  distinction 
leads  Edwards  to  introduce,  at  this  point  in  his  discussion, 
the  realistic  view  of  our  connection  with  Adam,  whereby 


408  THE   AUGUSTINIAN   AND  THE   FEDERAL 

his  act  is  made  to  be  ours  also,  and  thus  to  be  a  just  cause  of 
our  inherent  depravity  from  birth. 

6.  The  theory  of  immediate  imputation  is  incompatible 
with  a  right  conception  of  the  nature  of  sin.  Princeton  es- 
says in  support  of  this  theory  make  much  use  of  President 
Edwards^s  proposition  that  the  virtuousness  or  viciousness  of 
acts  of  the  will  or  dispositions  of  the  heart  lies  not  in  their 
cause,  but  their  nature.  Without  assenting  to  everything 
that  Edwards  teaches  under  this  head,  we  fully  accord  with 
his  main  idea  that  blame  and  praise  belong  to  acts  and  states 
of  the  will,  and  not  to  anything  antecedent,  to  which  they 
are  in  some  sense  due.  In  the  chapter  referred  to,  he  is 
prosecuting  his  old  crusade  against  the  notion  of  choosing 
choices.  But  he  guards  his  own  meaning  in  the  following 
remark  :  "  As  the  phrase,  heing  the  author,  may  be  under- 
stood, not  of  being  the  producer  by  an  antecedent  act  of 
will ;  but  as  a  person  may  be  said  to  be  the  author  of  the  act 
of  will  itself,  by  his  being  the  immediate  agent,  or  the  being 
that  is  acting,  or  in  exercise  in  that  act ;  if  the  phrase,  heing 
the  author,  is  used  to  signify  this,  then  doubtless  common 
sense  requires  men  being  [to  be]  the  authors  of  their  own 
acts  of  will,  in  order  to  their  being  esteemed  worthy  of 
praise  or  dispraise  on  account  of  them."  Men  are  responsi- 
ble, according  to  Edwards,  for  their  evil  native  character,  or 
state  of  will,  because  they  produced  it  through  the  generic  act 
— the  act  of  the  race — in  Adam.  Whether  that  first  sin 
was  thus  generic,  and  whether  if  it  were  so,  it  would  justify 
the  consequences  just  stated — whether,  in  other  words,  a 
generic  act  of  this  sort  may,  according  to  a  righteous  order, 
entail  guilt  on  the  individual  and  engender  sinful  character 
prior  to  an  act  of  individual  self-determination — we  shall 
not  here  inquire.  But  this  is  manifest,  that  Edwards,  like  the 
Augustinians,  supposed  that  an  act  of  sin  in  which  we  truly 
and  really  took  part  is  the  indispensable  condition  of  native 
guilt  and  depravity.  This  condition  the  doctrine  of  imme- 
diate imputation  on  the  federal  basis  sweeps  away.     We 


THEORIES   OF   ORIGINAL    SIN   COMPARED.. 


409 


are  made  to  have  a  habit  of  sin  from  the  outset,  with  no 
prior  act  of  sin  on  om*  part,  out  of  which  it  grew.  This 
violates  the  fundamental  conception  of  holy  and  sinful  char- 
acter, which  both  the  Scriptures  and  the  common-sense  of 
mankind  decisively  sanction. 
18 


410  A   SKETCH  OF   THE   HISTORY  OF   THE 


A  SKETCH  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE 
OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.* 

Recent  ecclesiastical  events  in  New  England  have  called 
up  for  public  discussion  the  Christian  doctrine  of  punish- 
ment in  the  future  life.  The  earnest  and  dispassionate  con- 
sideration of  any  of  the  momentous  themes  of  religion  cannot 
fail  to  be  of  wholesome  tendency.  In  the  present  ferment 
of  theological  opinion  in  all  Protestant  countries,  no  tradi- 
tional belief  can  escape  the  ordeal  of  renewed  and  searching 
inquiry.  Whatever  in  the  temper  of  the  times  may  be  de- 
serving of  censure,  there  is  a  vast  and  increasing  number  of 
persons  who  do  really  seek  the  truth  with  an  open  mind. 
It  having  been  thought  best  to  present  to  the  readers  of  The 
New  Englander  two  essays  on  the  doctrine  referred  to — 
written  independently  of  one  another,  with  no  polemical  in- 
tent, and  each  of  them  by  a  theological  scholar  competent 
to  handle  the  questions  involved,  in  the  light  to  be  drawn 
from  the  improved  philology  of  our  day  —  the  present 
writer  willingly  consents  to  introduce  these  learned  discus- 
sions by  preliminary  remarks,  chiefly  historical. 

In  the  ancient  period — the  patristic  period — embracing 
the  first  six  centuries,  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment 
was  the  prevalent  opinion.f    The  idea  of  the  ultimate  res- 

*  An  Article  in  The  New  Englander  for  March,  1878. 

f  A  word  may  here  be  said  upon  Jewish  opinion  on  this  subject.  The 
Pharisees  in  the  time  of  Christ  taught  the  doctrine  of  endless  punish- 
ment, as  we  learn  from  Josephus,  B.  J!,  ii.  8,  14,  Ant.  xviii  1,  3.  In 
both  passages  Josephus  uses  the  term  od^ios.  See,  also,  Gfrorer,  Das 
,  where  the  Rabbinical  teaching  is  given. 


DOCTEIKE    OF   FUTURE   PUNISHMENT.  411 

toration  of  all  was  entertained  by  a  few  eminent  church 
teachers,  and  the  notion  of  an  eventual  annihilation  of  the 
wicked  was  occasionally  broached.  Certain  writers  are 
often  erroneously  cited  as  favoring  the  last-rnentioned  view. 
The  Fathers  not  unfrequently  argue  against  the  belief  that 
the  soul  is  self -existent,  and  in  opposition  to  such  a  theory 
they  affirm  that  the  soul,  like  every  other  creature  of  God, 
is  upheld  by  divine  power,  and  will  continue  to  exist  as 
long  as  He  shall  choose  to  maintain  it  in  being.  Remarks 
of  this  kind  have  been  construed  as  indicating  that  the  souls 
of  the  wicked  will  one  day  cease  to  be.  So  Justin  Martyr 
(Dial.  c.  Tryjph.y  c.  5)  is  often  interpreted  ;  and,  at  the  first 
blush,  this  seems  to  be  the  natural  understanding  of  his 
words.  But  the  context  of  the  very  passage  appears  to  ex- 
clude this  construction,  which  elsewhere  would  seem  to  be 
expressly  contradicted  {Dial.  c.  Tryph.,  c.  130,  Apol.,  i.,  28). 
Irenseus  is  misinterpreted  in  a  similar  way.  In  one  place 
(Adv.  Ha^r.,  lib.  ii.,  34),  a  casual  reader  would  suppose  him 
to  affirm -that  the  existence  of  wicked  souls  is  terminable. 
Here  again  a  close  scrutiny  of  the  context  shows  that  a  dis- 
tinction is  made  between  bare  existence,  and  "  life  "  in  the 
higher  sense,  with  which  "  length  of  days  "  is  made  synony- 
mous. This  distinction  is  drawn  out  in  other  passages  (Lib. 
V.  4,  §  3  ;  7,  §  1 ;  27,  §  2).  "  Separation  from  God,"  he 
says,  "  is  death,"  or  the  loss  of  that  "  life  and  light,"  that 
triie  joy,  which  depends  on  communion  w^th  God.  That 
Irenaeus  held  to  the  doctrine  of  annihilation  has  also  been 
deduced  from  a  remark  made  in  one  of  the  so-called  Pfaf- 
fian  fragments  relative  to  the  ultimate  destruction  of  evil. 
The  author  of  this  fragment  evidently  had  in  mind  Col.  i. 
20,  22  ;  and  what  he  meant  to  say  precisely,  as  far  as  the  des- 
tiny of  the  wicked  is  concerned,  is  not  fully  clear.  But  the 
document  itself  is  of  more  than  doubtful  genuineness,  so 

Endless  punishment,  though  the  common,  was  not  the  universal,  belief 
of  the  Jews.  See  the  reference  to  the  Talmud,  in  Schiirer,  HT.  T.  Zeitge- 
schichte^  p.  597. 


412  A   SKETCH   OF   THE   HISTORY   OF  THE 

that  no  inference  respecting  the  tenets  of  Irenseus  can  be 
built  npon  it.  There  are  passages  in  which  Irenseus  can 
hardly  be  otherwise  interpreted  than  as  teaching  endless 
conscious  punishment  (e.  g.^  Lib.  iv.  28,  §  1 ;  c.  39,  §  4 ;  cf . 
Lib.  iii.  23,  §  3  ;  iv.  28,  §  1).  At  least  every  other  interpre- 
tation seems  artificial. 

Amobius  (near  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century),  the 
African  rhetorician,  advocated  the  opinion  that  the  soul 
gains  immortality  by  perseverance  in  goodness,  and  that  con- 
sequently the  wicked  absolutely  go  out  of  being.  But  he 
had  too  many  idiosyncrasies  of  opinion  to  be  of  any  weight 
as  an  authority  for  ascertaining  the  beliefs  of  his  contempo- 
raries. Arnobius  was  in  no  sense  a  representative  of  ortho- 
doxy. 

The  Alexandrians,  Clement  and  Origen,  are  the  chief  dis- 
sentients from  the  ordinary  doctrine,  in  the  first  three  cen- 
turies. Clement  explicitly  aflSrms  his  belief  that  all  will 
finally  be  restored  to  holiness.  Origen  maintains  this  opin- 
ion, and  contributed  more  than  any  other  theologian  to  give 
it  whatever  degree  of  currency  it  obtained  in  the  ancient 
church.  With  Origen  it  was  an  esoteric  doctrine,  a  doctrine 
which  belonged  to  the  believer  in  the  mature  stage  of  Chris- 
tian character  and  of  discernment,  but  one  which  would  be 
abused  and  be  prolific  of  harm,  if  it  were  proclaimed  to  all. 

It  is  important  to  observe  the  connection  of  this  belief  of 
Origen  with  other  parts  of  his  system.  He  held  that  the 
will  does  not  lose  its  mutable  quality,  or  issue  in  that  per- 
manence of  character,  which  is  an  essential  idea  in  the 
Augustinian  anthropology.  Original  sin  he  explained  on 
the  supposition  of  a  pre-existence  of  souls,  a  doctrine  derived 
from  Platonism,  and  of  a  moral  fall  prior  to  birth ;  and 
though  he  believed  in  universal  restoration,  which  would 
comprehend  in  its  wide  sweep  fallen  angels  and  even  Satan, 
he  thought  that  there  might  be  a  series  of  falls  and  recover- 
ies in  the  seons  to  come.  Punishment,  it  is  also  important 
to  remark,  he  held  to  be  disciplinary  in  its  aim,  the  reform 


DOCTRINE   OF   FUTUEE   PUNISHMENT.  413 

of  the  offender  being  the  prime  end  in  view  in  the  infliction 
of  it. 

At  this  point  we  may  interpose  two  observations.  The 
first  is  that  the  question  of  the  design  of  punishment  in  the 
future  life  is  intimately  connected  with  the  problem  of  its 
duration.  Is  punishment  ordained  chiefly  for  the  recovery 
of  the  transgressor  ?  Or  is  it  retrospective,  strictly  retribu- 
tive, a  recompense,  a  reaction  of  offended  justice  and  of  the 
violated  moral  order  ?  It  is  true  that  restoration  does  not 
follow,  with  logical  necessity,  from  the  first  view,  stated 
above,  of  the  office  of  punishment  in  the  divine  economy ; 
for  it  may  be  held  that  the  resistance  of  free-will  will  de- 
feat the  provision  of  grace,  and  prevent  chastisement  from 
bringing  forth  its  appropriate  fruits,  since  they  do  not  ensue 
with  any  fatalistic  certainty.  Still,  universal  restoration  is 
more  likely  to  be  adopted  in  connection  with  this  idea  of 
the  reformatory  function  of  penalty.  Nor  does  the  doctrine 
of  the  retributive,  or  vindicatory,  design  of  punishment 
necessarily  exclude  restoration  ;  since  it  is  conceivable  that 
repentance  should  take  place  under  the  operation  of  penal- 
ties not  ordained  for  the  sake  of  this  result.  Still,  a  doc- 
trine of  restoration  is  much  more  likely  to  be  rejected  by 
those  who  so  interpret  the  significance  of  punishment.  It  is 
possible,  to  be  sure,  to  combine  the  two  views  of  punish- 
ment, and  to  consider  it,  in  its  direct  or  primary  design,  re- 
troactive, but  with  a  subordinate  aim  which  looks  to  a  bene- 
ficent effect  upon  the  character  of  the  sufferer.  We  do  not 
here  discuss  the  question,  but  simply  point  out  its  cardinal 
importance.  In  not  a  few  modern  discussions  of  the  Atone- 
ment, it  has  surprised  us  to  find  no  preliminary  consideration 
of  the  design  of  punishment  under  the  divine  government. 

The  second  observation  suggested  by  the  foregoing  state- 
ment of  Origen's  creed  is  that  the  question  relates  to  the 
effect  of  redemption.  What  are  to  be  its  consequences? 
What  the  extent  of  its  actual  operation  ?  There  is  a  Uni- 
versalism — a  Universalismvs  vulgaris — which  makes  little 


414  A   SKETCH   OF   THE   HISTOET   OF   THE 

or  nothing  of  the  fact  of  sin,  and  founds  itself  either  on  a 
denial  of  ill-desert,  or  on  a  belief  in  man's  power  to  extricate 
himself  from  the  control  of  evil,  to  shake  off  the  principle 
of  selfishness  and  ungodliness.  Christianity  is  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  world  by  Jesus  Christ.  Its  fundamental  postu- 
late is  the  fact  of  sin  and  of  condemnation.  Deliverance  is 
provided,  which  is  available  to  all.  Now  it  is  conceivable 
that  all  should  sooner  or  later  lay  hold  of  this  help  and  be 
saved.  If  the  Bible  had  so  declared,  there  would,  have  been 
involved  in  this  declaration  no  denial  or  attenuation  of  the 
essential  elements  of  the  Gospel.  It  would  have  been  sim- 
ply the  revelation  of  a  fact  by  which  the  truths  of  the  In- 
carnation and  Expiation  of  Christ,  and  of  the  work  of  the 
Spirit,  are  nowise  affected.  We  are  not  aware  that  John 
Foster  denied  any  fundamental  part  of  the  gospel  method 
of  redemption.  He  probably  accepted  cordially  the  Apos- 
tles' and  the  Nicene  creeds.  He  was  an  evangelical  Uni- 
versalist.  Universalism  in  every  form  may  be  an  error,  and 
a  very  mischievous  error ;  or  it  may  not  be.  But  all  sorts 
of  Universalism  are  not  to  be  confounded  together.* 

When  we  pass  into  the  second  section  of  the  patristic 
period  (from  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  to  the  end  of  the 
sixth  century),  we  find  that  although  the  doctrine  of  endless 
punishment  still  prevails,  there  is   more   dissent  from  it. 

*  A  student  at  Cambridge  laid  before  Robert  Hall  his  perplexities  on 
the  subject  of  eternal  punishment.  Hall,  after  stating,  in  his  forcible 
manner,  his  reasons  for  accepting  the  doctrine,  thus  concludes  :  "I 
would  only  add  that  in  my  humble  opinion  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal 
duration  of  future  misery,  metaphysically  considered,  is  not  an  essential 
article  of  faith,  nor  is  the  belief  of  it  ever  proposed  as  a  term  of  salva- 
tion; that,  if  we  really  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come,  by  truly  repenting 
of  our  sins,  and  laying  hold  of  the  mercy  of  God  through  Christ  by  a 
lively  faith,  our  salvation  is  perfectly  secure,  whichever  hypothesis  we 
embrace  on  this  most  mysterious  subject.  The  evidence  accompanying 
the  popular  interpretation  is  by  no  means  to  be  compared  to  that  which 
establishes  our  common  Christianity,  and  therefore  the  fate  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion  is  not  to  be  considered  as  implicated  in  the  belief,  or  disbelief 
of  the  popular  doctrine."— Hall's  Works,  v.,  537. 


DOCTRINE    OF   FUTURE   PUNISHMENT.  415 

Gregory  of  Nyssa,  one  of  the  most  eminent,  if  not  the  most 
eminent,  of  the  ancient  Greek  theologians,  expresses  himself 
distinctly  on  the  side  of  universal  restoration."^  Less  defi- 
nitely, Gregory  of  ]S^azianzus  takes  the  same  view.  In  the 
latter  part  of  the  fourth  century,  the  two  great  representa- 
tives of  the  Antioch  school  of  theology,  Diodore  of  Tarsus 
and  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  were  restorationists.  In  their 
theology,  the  Incarnation  was  not  only  for  the  deliverance 
of  man  from  sin,  but  its  design  and  effect  were  to  elevate 
mankind  to  a  higher  stage  of  being  than  that  on  which  he 
stood,  or  which  was  possible  to  him,  as  a  descendant  of 
Adam.  Beyond  its  negative  effect,  the  work  of  Christ, 
the  second  Adam,  conferred  a  positive  good  by  lifting  up 
the  race  to  a  higher  destination.  And  this  work,  Theodore 
and  his  followers  maintained,  would  eventually  take  effect 
on  all.  Theodore  argues  that  Christ  never  would  have  said 
"  until  thou  hast  paid  the  uttermost  farthing,"  if  it  had  not 
been  possible  for  this  to  be  done  ;  nor  would  he  have  said 
that  one  should  be  beaten  with  many  stripes,  and  another 
with  few,  if  there  was  to  be  no  end  to  the  infliction  when 
men  had  suffered  a  punishment  commensurate  with  their 
sin.f  This  argument,  it  will  be  perceived,  presupposes  that 
a  limited  punishment  is  all  that  justice  requires,  and  that, 
when  this  has  been  endured,  the  debt  is  paid. 

No  doubt  this  opinion  of  the  Antiochian  teachers,  which 
was  consonant  with  that  of  Origen,  though  adopted  by  them 
independently,  had  many  adherents  in  the  fifth  century. 
But  the  antagonism  to  Origen's  philosophy  and  theology, 
which  was  excited  under  the  lead  of  Jerome  and  others, 
caused  this  opinion,  together  with  other  peculiarities  of  the 
theology  of  the  gi-eat  Alexandrian,  to  be  at  length  generally 
rejected  and  proscribed  as  heretical.  •  Augustine  strenuously 
defended  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  although  in 


*  Oral.  Cat,  8,  35  ;  also  in  the  treatise  de  anima. 
f  Asseman.  Bibl.  Orient.^  t.  iii.,  p.  323. 


416  A   SKETCH   OF   THE   HISTORY   OF   THE 

his  time,  and  within  the  circle  of  his  influence,  there  were 
"tender-hearted  Christians,"  as  he  styles  them,  besides 
others  whom  he  classifies  differently,  who  declined  to  accept 
it.*  From  the  close  of  the  fifth  century,  the  doctrine  that 
those  condemned  at  the  last  judgment  endure  endless  pain 
became  an  undisputed  article  of  belief  in  the  church. 

Yet  this  article  of  belief  was  practically  modified  in  a 
most  important  degree  by  the  rise  and  establishment  of  the 
doctrine  of  purgatory.  The  church  from  the  beginning  had 
believed  in  an  intermediate  state.  The  fathers  of  the  first 
centuries  held  that  Christ,  after  his  death,^  descended  into 
Hades.  There  he  prosecuted  his  work  in  opposition  to 
Satan.  Sometimes  it  was  said  that  he  was  victorious  there 
in  some  undefined  conflict  with  the  Devil.  This  ancient 
idea  is  expressed  thus  in  The  Institution  of  a  Christian 
Mem,  which  was  issued  in  the  early  days  of  the  English 
Reformation,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  YIII. :  "  Our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ  at  his  entry  into  hell  first  conquered  and  op- 
pressed both  the  devil  and  hell,  and  also  death  itself,"  f 
"Without  tracing  the  different  modifications  of  this  idea — 
half -earnest,  and  half -mythical  or  symbolic — as  it  is  brought 
forward  in  the  patristic  vn*iters,  this,  at  least,  was  a  clear 
and  accepted  tenet,  based,  as  was  supposed,  on  1  Pet.  iv.  5-7 
and  Eph.  iv.  Y-11,  that  in  the  interval  between  his  crucifix- 
ion and  resurrection,  Jesus  preached  to  a  portion  of  the  in- 
habitants of  Hades,  or  the  Underworld,  the  abode  of  de- 
parted souls.  There  he  delivered  the  pious  dead  of  the 
Old  Testament,  whom  he  transported  to  Paradise.  This 
tenet  is  also  set  foi'th  in  immediate  connection  with  the 
passage  which  we  have  cited  from  The  Institution  of  a 
Christian  Man :  "  Afterward  he  spoiled  hell,  and  deliv- 
ered and  brought  with  him  from  thence  all  the  souls  of  those 
righteous  and  good  men  which  from  the  fall  of  Adam  died 


*  De  Civit.  Dd,  lib.  xxi.  17-21.     Of.  Encheirid.,  c.  112. 
f  Quoted  in  Blunt's  Diet  of  Doctr.  and  Mist.  Theol^  p.  416. 


DOCTEINE   OF   FCTUBE   PUNISHMENT.  417 

in  the  fear  of  God,  and  in  the  faith  and  belief  of  this  our 
Saviour,  which  was  then  to  come."  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
in  harmony  with  his  general  system,  thought  that  the  vir- 
tuous heathen  shared  in  the  benefit  of  Christ's  preaching  in 
Hades.  Paradise,  to  which  the  saints  of  the  old  covenant 
were  conveyed,  was  not  generally  considered  by  the  Fathers 
to  be  a  subdivision  of  Hades,  but  it  was  held  to  be  an  abode 
of  happiness,  with  respect  to  the  precise  location  of  which 
opinion  was  not  uniform.  Origen  placed  it  in  an  apartment 
of  heaven — the  third  heaven.  More  and  more  the  feeling 
spread,  especially  after  Origen's  time,  that  Hades,  the  Un- 
derworld, was  a  gloomy,  undesirable  region,  where  there 
could  be  nothing  but  suffering,  and  where  Satan  held  sway."^ 
Yet  it  was  agreed  that  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  do  not 
enter  at  death  into  the  full  fruition  of  reward  or  the  full 
measure  of  suffering.     They  wait  for  this  until  the  resurrec- 


*  Hades  is  the  rendering,  in  the  Septuagint,  of  Sheol,  the  Underworld, 
the  abode  of  departed  souls  without  reference  to  distinctions  of  character 
or  lot.  In  the  New  Testament  Hades  occurs  only  in  Matt.  xL  23  (and  its 
parallel,  Luke  x.  15),  Matt.  xvi.  18,  Luke  xvi.  23,  Acts  ii.  27,  31,  Rev.  i. 
18,  vi.  8,  XX.  13, 14 :  since  in  1  Cor.  xv.  55  and  Rev.  iii.  7,  the  correct 
reading"  omits  the  word.  In  Acts  ii  27,  31,  the  term  appears  obviously 
to  retain  its  old  significance.  In  the  book  of  Revelation  it  retains  its  in- 
timate association  with  "death."  In  Matt.  xL  23,  Luke  x.  15,  the  gen- 
eral idea  of  destruction  comports  with  the  old  conception  of  Hades.  The 
same  is  true  of  Matt.  xvi.  18:  "The  gates  of  Hades  shall  not  prevail 
against  it."  In  Luke  xvi.  23,  Dives  is  in  Hades,  in  torment;  Lazarus 
"  afar  off,"  separated  from  him  by  a  chasm  or  an  abyss,  in  the  bosom  of 
Abraham.  Comparing  this  passage  with  Acts  ii.  27,  31,  and  with  Luke 
xxiii.  43,  we  are  led  to  believe  that  the  Evangelist  conceived  of  the  place 
denoted  by  "  the  bosom  of  Abraham"  as  in  Paradise,  and  Paradise  as  in- 
cluded within  Hades.  The  heavenly  Paradise  of  which  Paul  speaks  (2 
Cor.  xii.  4)  is  differently  placed.  The  perplexity  of  Augustine  in  deter- 
mining the  sense  of  the  statement  in  the  Apostles'  Creed — '*  he  descended 
into  hell,"  is  partly  connected  with  his  inability  to  think  of  Hades  as  com- 
prehending **  Paradise  "  within  it.  His  frank  confession  of  the  diflBculties 
that  beset  his  mind  on  this  subject,  and  especially  on  the  preaching  to 
the  spirits  in  prison  (1  Pet.  iii.  19),  is  made  at  length  in  one  of  his  Epistles 
(clxiv.,  ad  Ecodium), 
18* 


418  A    SKETCH    OF   THE   HISTORY    OF   THE 

tion  and  the  last  judgment.  Some  of  the  Fathers  had 
taught — among  them,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and,  later, 
Lad;antius,  Ambrose,  and  Jerome — that  in  the  fire  of  the 
last  day,  which  consumes  the  world,  the  remaining  dross  of 
sin  will  be  burnt  away  from  the  souls  of  the  redeemed.  The 
same  idea,  it  appears,  is  found  h'ere  and  there  in  the  Rabbini- 
cal teaching,  and  even,  as  some  think,  prior  to  the  time  of 
Christ.*  Clement  of  Alexandria,  as  might  be  expected, 
pronounced  this  purifying  fire  to  be  of  an  etherial  or  spirit- 
ual nature.  It  was  reserved  for  Augustine,  however,  to  lay 
the  foundation  of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  by  suggesting 
that  Christians  not  fully  cleansed  at  death  from  the  pollu- 
tion of  sin  are  purified  in  the  intermediate  state,  through 
the  agency  of  purgatorial  fire.  His  conjecture  was  converted 
by  those  who  came  after  him  into  a  fixed  article  of  belief. 
Under  the  auspices  of  Gregory  I.  it  established  itself  in  the 
theology  of  the  Western  Church.  It  connected  itself  with 
the  doctrine  of  penance  and  indulgences,  which  was  rounded 
out  by  Alexander  of  Hales,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  by 
the  introduction  of  the  notion  of  a  treasury  of  supererogatory 
merits.  The  Eastern  Church  has  never  admitted  the  Latin 
doctrine  of  a  fiery  purgatory.  Yet  Eastern  orthodoxy 
allows  that  pains  of  remorse  may  exist  in  the  minds  of  the 
redeemed  after  death,  and  that  prayers  and  offerings  in 
their  behalf  are  beneficial. 

Thus  the  church,  throughout  the  middle  ages,  or  for  a 
thousand  years,  held  to  a  reformatory  punishment,  of  a 
limited  duration,  for  the  mass  of  those  who  were  under  its 
tutelage.  All  were  baptized.  None  were  excluded  from 
the  sacraments  but  the  contumacious  and  incorrigible.  Hell 
was  reserved  for  those  dying  unabsolved,  in  mortal  sin. 
There  was  hope  for  the  final  salvation  of  all  not  obstinate 
in  their  rebellion  against  the  church  and  the  law  of  God. 
From  this  hope,  however,  the  heathen  and  the  infidel  were 

*  Gfrorer,  Das  JahrJu  d.  HeUs,  ii.,  p.  81. 


DOCTRINE   OF   FUTURE   PUNISHMENT.  419 

of  course  cut  off.  The  Divina  Commedia  of  Dante,  in  its 
three  parts,  gives  to  the  reader  a  fair  conception  of  the 
theology  of  Aquinas,  whom  the  poet  calls  his  master.  Only 
over  the  gate  of  one  of  the  regions  which  the  poet  explored 
was  written  the  inscription : 

"Lasciate  ogni  speranza,  voi  ch'  entrate." 

The  Reformers  attacked  the  whole  doctrine  of  purgatory. 
This  they  did  on  scriptural  grounds,  and  from  the  connec- 
tion in  which  that  doctrine  stood  with  the  theory  of  indul- 
gences, and  with  the  claim  of  the  church  and  the  Pope  to  a 
partial  control  over  the  lot  of  those  who  are  enduring  pur- 
gatorial fire.  It  was  with  an  assault  upon  the  mediaeval 
conception  of  iridulgences  and  the  correlated  tenets,  that 
Luther  began  his  movement.  The  Augsburg  Confession 
(Art.  IX.)  makes  baptism  essential  to  salvation,  and  teaches 
that  even  unbaptized  children  are  lost.  Some  of  the  Calvia- 
istic  confessions  (as  the  Confessio  Belgica^  Art.  XXXIY.), 
appear  to  affirm  the  same  tenet ;  though  others  (as  Conf. 
Scot.  a.  A.  D.  1580),  repudiate  it.  Calvin  denies  that  all  un- 
baptized persons  are  adjudged  to  eternal  death,  and  uses 
language  consonant  with  the  view  which  so  many  of  the  old 
Protestant  theologians  embraced,  that  not  the  privation, 
but  the  contempt,  of  the  sacraments  brings  perdition  {Inst., 
lY.,  xvi.,  26).  Many  of  the  Calvinistic  confessions  (as  those 
of  the  Westminster  Assembly)  affirm  that  "  elect "  infants 
are  saved,  and  say  nothing,  except  by  implication,  respect- 
ing those  who  are  not  elect.  Augustine  had  taught  the 
final  condemnation  of  non-elect  infants,  and  had  retreated 
from  his  earlier  view  that  their  pimishment  in  the  future 
life  is  purely  negative.  He  thought,  however,  that  their 
damnation  is  of  the  mildest '  sort  ("  levissima,"  Cont.  Jul., 
v.,  4.  Cf .  Ep.  clxxxvi.,  29).  The  schoolmen  were  generally 
disposed  to  embrace  Augustine's  prior  and  more  merciful 
opinion,  so  that  when  a  distinguished  ecclesiastic  in  the  four- 
teenth century,  Gregory  of  Rimini,  revived  the  later  idea 


4:20  A   SKETCH   OF   THE   HISTORY   OF   THE 

of  Augustine,  he  was  designated  by  the  opprobrious  title  of 
tortor  infantum.  The  schoolmen  placed  infants  in  one  of 
the  outer  zones  of  hell — the  limbus  infantium — where  they 
are  deprived  of  bliss.  Augustine  had  a  greater  influence 
than  any  other  patristic  writer  in  shaping  the  doctrines  of 
the  Reformers  on  these  topics.  Zwingle,  who  brought  away 
from  the  old  church  more  of  the  tone  of  the  Renaissance 
than  any  other  of  the  Protestant  champions,  held  that  not 
only  infants,  but  the  virtuous  heathen,  also,  are  partakers  of 
salvation.  These  ideas  were  associated  with  his  peculiar 
tenet  respecting  original  sin,  and  with  other  opinions,  which, 
as  is  well  known,  led  Luther  to  feel  that  there  was  in  him  a 
certain  Rationalistic  vein :  "  Ihr  Kaht  einen  anderen  Geist 
denn  WirP 

The  Protestant  theologians  carried  their  opposition  to 
purgatory  so  far  as  to  obliterate  the  whole  doctrine  of  the 
intermediate  state.  The  Westminster  Confession  (c.  xxxii.) 
declares  that  "  the  souls  of  the  righteous,"  at  death,  "  are 
received  into  the  highest  heavens,"  and  "  the  souls  of  the 
wicked  are  cast  into  hell ; "  and  adds :  "  Besides  these  two 
places  for  souls  separated  from  their  bodies,  the  Scripture 
acknowledgeth  none."  In  Luther's  Bible,  both  8heol  and 
Hades  (even  in  Acts  ii.  31),  as  well  as  Gehenna^  were  ren- 
dered Hohle  ;  in  King  James's  version,  "  Hell."  That  doc- 
trine was  revived,  in  a  form  to  exclude  the  notion  of  pur- 
gatory, in  particular  by  certain  Anglican  divines,  as  Light- 
foot,  Burnet,  and  Pearson,  and  by  Campbell  in  his  Disserta- 
tions on  the  Four  Gospels. 

We  have  now  to  glance  at  those  modifications  of  doctrinal 
opinion  on  this  subject,  which  have  arisen  in  more  modern 
times  among  evangelical  theologians  who  do  not  accept  liter- 
ally the  confessions  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  cen- 
turies. 

We  begin  with  the  Lutheran  theologians  who  are  loosely 
designated  as  of  the  Schleiermacherian  school — that  school 
to  which  the  revival  of  a  believing  and  scientific  theology, 


DOCTRINE    OF   FUTURE   PUNISHMENT.  421 

in  opposition  to  the  old -fashioned  Rationalism,  is  chiefly 
due. 

The  point  to  which  theologians  of  this  class  not  unfre- 
quentlj  refer  is  the  prophetic  and  fragmentary  character  of 
the  eschatological  teaching  of  the  New  Testament.  Just 
as  the  predictions  of  the  Messianic  age  must  of  necessity  be 
presented  in  pictures,  and  be  only  partially  apprehensible  to 
the.  church  of  the  Old  Testament,  so  an  analogous  predic- 
tive element  enters  into  the  description  of  the  Last  Things, 
which  forms  a  part  of  the  New  Testament  Revelation.  It 
is  only  glimpses  that  are  afforded  us  of  an  order  of  things 
outside  of  all  present  experience.  Hence  the  impossibility 
of  that  precision  of  dogmatic  statement  which  is  practica- 
ble in  other  parts  of  the  Christian  system.  This  considera- 
tion may,  to  be  sure,  be  used  to  eviscerate  of  their  proper 
meaning  express  declarations  of  the  Saviour  and  his  apos- 
tles, or  to  attenuate  the  force  of  the  moral  truth  revealed  in 
them.  But  such  is  not  the  design  of  the  theologians  to 
whom  we  now  refer.  They  bring  forward  this  suggestion 
by  way  of  wholesome  caution  against  an  over-literal  inter- 
pretation, or  a  presumptuous  claim  to  know  more  than  it 
was  the  intention  of  Heaven  to  reveal. 

The  principal  deviation  from  the  traditional  tenets  on  the 
subject  before  us,  which  is  found  among  the  German  evan- 
gelical theologians,  is  in  the  idea  of  an  opportunity  of  hear- 
ing the  Gospel,  to  be  granted,  beyond  the  bounds  of  this 
life,  and  prior  to  the  last  judgment,  to  those  who  have  not 
heard  of  Christ  here,  or  have  imperfectly  apprehended  his 
Gospel.  The  belief  is  frequently  expressed  that  multitudes 
who  depart  from  the  world  without  a  true  knowledge  of  the 
way  of  life,  will  be  enlightened  and  renewed  during  this  in- 
termediate period.  It  is  maintained  that  eternal  punish- 
ment is  threatened  in  the  Scriptures  to  those  who  have  been 
made  acquainted  with  the  Gospel,  but  have  refused  to  avail 
themselves  of  its  offers,  and  that  a  sound  exegesis  does  not 
warrant  the  assumption  that  anything  but  the  conscious  re- 


422  A    SKETCH    OF   THE   HISTORY    OF   THE 

jection  of  the  light  and  help  which  the  Gospel  affords,  will 
be  attended  with  final  condemnation.  It  is  true,  also,  that 
the  problem  of  the  ultimate  restoration  of  all  is  discussed  ; 
but  an  affirmative  solution  is  seldom  unequivocally  ex- 
pressed. Many,  on  the  other  hand,  would  decide  this  ques- 
tion in  the  negative. 

It  should  be  stated,  also,  that  this  class  of  theologians,  how- 
ever much  they  may  qualify  the  old  formulas  and  concep- 
tions of  inspiration,  stand  firmly  upon  the  Protestant  princi- 
ple that  the  Bible,  fairly  interpreted,  with  a  comparison  of 
Scripture  with  Scripture,  is  the  rule  of  faith. 

Schleiermacher  {Christl.  Glauhe,  ii.,  503  seq.)  opposes  the 
doctrine  of  eternal  punishment,  partly  on  exegetical  grounds : 
he  interprets  1  Cor.  xv.,  25,  26,  as  teaching  the  opposite. 
He  finds  psychological  difficulties  in  the  supposition  of  an 
unending  self-reproach  through  an  activity  of  conscience 
which  yet  is  attended  with  no  moral  improvement.  The 
capacity  to  conceive  of  the  blessedness  of  the  redeemed, 
which  is  the  necessary  condition  of  this  anguish,  involves  a 
remaining  capacity  to  share  in  the  good  thus  imagined.  It 
is  impossible,  he  argues,  to  suppose  that  the  saints  in  heaven 
can  be  happy  if  their  fellow-men,  for  whom,  even  though 
their  sufferings  are  deserved,  they  must  feel  compassion  and 
sympathy,  are  in  a  state  of  misery  from  which  there  is  no 
hope  of  deliverance.  The  sorrow  of  the  good  would  be  in- 
creased by  the  consciousness  that  their  own  salvation  was  se- 
cured by  help  accorded,  in  the  course  of  the  divine  govern- 
ment, to  them,  which  the  lost  had  not  enjoyed.  "  Therefore 
we  should  not  hold  to  such  a  notion  [as  to  the  destiny  of 
ihen],  without  decisive  testimonies  that  Jesus  has  foreseen  it, 
such  as  we  by  no  means  possess. 

Keander,  in  his  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Church 
(Eobinson's  ed.,  p.  483  seq.),  takes  up  this  question  of  resto- 
ration. He  admits  the  possibility  of  an  increasing  illumina- 
tion of  the  Apostle  Paul's  mind  in  respect  to  the  prospects  of 
the  kingdom,  analogous  to  that  progressive  enlightenment 


DOCTRINE    OF    FUTUEE    PUNISHMENT.  423 

which  Peter  experienced  on  the  question  of  the  privileges  of 
the  Gentiles.  In  the  later  Pauline  epistles  there  is  an  ad- 
vance beyond  the  earlier.  "  We  discern  in  Paul  a  progres- 
sive knowledge  of  eschatology  generally,  as  it  grew  up  under 
the  enlightening  and  guiding  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
when  w^e  compare  his  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  with  his 
later  epistles,  the  lif  ting-up  of  believers  to  an  ever-enduring 
fellowship  with  the  Lord  (1  Thess.  iv.  17),  with  the  later  de- 
veloped doctrine  of  the  earth  as  the  seat  of  the  perfected 
kingdom  of  God  ;  and  2  Thess.  i.  T,  9,  with  the  doctrine  of 
a  final  restitution  announced  at  a  later  period."  This  doc- 
trine Xeander  is  inclined  to  find  in  1  Cor.  xv.  27,  28,  in  con- 
nection with  Phil.  ii.  10, 11,  and  Coloss.  i.  20.  He  also  touches 
on  this  topic  in  his  posthumous  work  on  the  Epistles  to  the 
Corinthians  {Corinther'hTiefe^  p.  246  seq.),  in  his  comment  on 
1  Corinthians  xv.  22 :  "  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in 
Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  After  noticing  the  differ- 
ent interpretations  given  to  the  passage,  he  says :  "  After 
all,  the  simplest  construction  would  be  to  take  the  second 
'  all '  as  equally  universal  with  the  first.  In  that  case  there 
would  be  contained  in  these  words  the  doctrine  of  a  univer- 
sal restoration."  He  then  proceeds  to  answer  objections  to 
this  interpretation  from  declarations  found  elsewhere  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  by  Paul  himself,  which  are  thought 
to  be  of  a  contrary  tenor ;  and  concludes  thus  :  "  therefore, 
the  possihility  of  such  a  construction  of  the  passage  as  we 
have  pointed  out,  must  be  maintained."  But  in  a  note  writ- 
ten later  (in  1834),  he  says :  "  Paul  had  in  mind  only  the  be- 
lievers, and  ignores  those  who  are  lost."  That  is,  he  returns 
to  the  restricted  interpretation  of  the  second  "  all."  In  con- 
nection wdth  the  passage  previously  quoted  from  the  earlier 
work,  is  this  note :  "  The  doctrine  of  such  a  universal  resti- 
tution would  not  stand  in  contradiction  to  the  doctrine  of 
eternal  punishment,  as  the  latter  appears  in  the  Gospels ;  for 
although  those  who  are  hardened  in  wickedness,  left  to  the 
consequences  of  their  conduct,  their  merited  fate,  have  to 


424  A   SKETCH    OF   THE   HISTORY   OF   THE 

expect  endless  unhappiness,  yet  a  hidden  purpose  of  the  di- 
vine compassion  is  not  necessarily  excluded,  by  virtue  of 
which,  through  the  wisdom  of  God  revealing  itself  in  the 
discipline  of  free  agents,  they  will  be  led  to  a  free  appropri- 
ation of  redemption  "   (Robinson's  ed.,  p.  487). 

This  last  thought  appears  to  be  involved  in  the  rather 
obscure  discussion  by  Nitzsch,  one  of  the  most  eminent  of 
the  modern  Lutheran  theologians  and  ecclesiastics  {Syste^n 
d.  christL  Lehre^  p.  416  seq.).  "  The  Scripture  teaches  an 
eternal  damnation  of  individual  men,  because  it  is  in  hy- 
pothesi  necessary.  The  non-coercive,  non-magical,  non-me- 
chanical nature  of  grace  leaves  room  for  final  resistance  to 
its  influence ;  perseverance  in  the  resistance  of  unbelief  is 
possible  :  consequently  there  must  be  de  futuro^  and  on  this 
supposition,  if  there  is  to  be  a  final  judgment,  eternal  dam- 
nation." But  whether  this  hypothesis  will  become  thesis, 
or  actuality,  is  another  question.  Nitzsch  argues  against 
the  annihilation  doctrine.  The  Saviour  (in  Matt.  x.  28, 
Luke  xii.  4,  5)  does  not  oppose  to  the  fear  of  being  killed 
by  men,  the  fear  of  being  killed  by  God  ;  he  does  not  op- 
pose to  the  fear  of  bodily  death,  the  fear  of  death  abso- 
lutely. Not  to  kill  {cLTTOKTelvaL^  but  "to  destroy  the 
soul "  {aTToKeaai,  '^v)(riv)y  "  to  cast  into  hell "  {ifi^aXeiv 
ek  Tr}v  yievvav),  is  what  God  is  represented,  in  contrast 
with  men,  as  able  to  do.  It  is  supposable  that  eternal  dam- 
nation is  a  mere  hypothesis  and  universal  restoration  the 
fact ;  or  that  there  is  an  absolute  annihilation  ;  or  that  the 
wicked  soul  is  reduced  to  a  ruin — bereft  of  every  good  as 
well  as  evil  activity.  In  either  case  it  is  conceivable  that 
the  same  apostle  who  had  preached  eternal  danmation,  yet 
in  his  final  eschsitologj  (dusserste  Mchatologie),  in  1  Cor.  xv., 
passes  above  and  beyond  this  antithesis. 

Julius  Miiller  discusses  the  question  before  us  with  his 
wonted  ability,  in  his  unpublished  lectures,  and  in  his  trea- 
tise on  The  Doctrine  of  Sin  {Lehre  v.  d.  Siinde,  ii.,  598  seq.). 
In  this  work  (vol.  i.,  p.  334  seq.),  Miiller  insists  upon  the  dis- 


DOCTRINE    OF   FUTURE   PUNISHMENT.  425 

tinction  between  chastisement  and  penalty,  the  former  being 
distinguished  by  having  for  its  design  the  amendment  of 
him  on  whom  it  is  inflicted,  and  being  thus  the  product  of 
paternal  mercy.  The  idea  of  punishment,  on  the  contrary, 
is  set  forth  in  such  passages  as  2  Thess.  i.  8,  9,  ii.  12,  He- 
brews X.  29,  30  ;  and  most  clearly  in  1  Cor.  xi.  32,  where 
chastisement  and  penalty  are  brought  into  juxtaposition,  and 
explicitly  contrasted  with  one  another.  Punishment,  more- 
over, is  set  forth  as  related  to  guilt,  rather  than  to  sin  as  a 
principle  to  be  overcome.  Miiller  maintains  that  no  univer- 
sal restoration  can  possibly  take  place  prior  to  the  judgment, 
since  in  that  case  there  could  be  no  separation  and  no  judg- 
ment at  all.  Hence  he  concludes  that  restoration  cannot  be 
taught  in  1  Cor.  xv.  22,  nor  in  Rom.  v,  18,  19,  since  these 
passages  would  place  it,  if  they  referred  to  it  at  all,  in  this 
intermediate  period.  He  confutes  the  argument  for  univer- 
sal restoration  which  is  founded  on  the  aim,  or  proper  ten- 
dency, of  the  Gospel  and  of  the  divine  system  of  recovery  ; 
since  the  results  are  made  contingent  on  the  free  act  of  the 
creature.  Nor  does  he  regard  as  conclusive  the  grounds 
which  are  drawn  from  Christian  feeling,  which  revolts  at  an 
unsubdued  antagonism  to  the  divine  will  to  be  perpetuated 
forever.  He  admits  the  weight  of  this  objection,  but  does 
not  consider  it  decisive.  The  infliction  of  punishment, 
where  the  disobedient  creature  passively  and  involuntarily 
acknowledges  the  absolute  supremacy  and  majesty  of  the 
divine  law,  secures  from  discordance  the  harmony  of  the  di- 
vine order.  Nor,  again,  can  restoration  be  infallibly  de- 
duced from  the  divine  love,  since  though  justice  is  a  branch 
of  love,  yet  in  love  justice  and  holiness  are  essential  ele- 
ments. Love,  from  its  very  nature,  must  react  against  its 
opposite,  and  assume  the  form  of  holy  indignation.  [N'or 
can  inhumanity  be  charged  on  the  Creator,  if  a  being  en- 
dued with  free-will,  through  his  own  sin  brings  on  himself 
endless  ruin.  The  jpossihility  of  endless  punishment  must 
then  be  conceded.      Sin  has  a  tendency  to  pei-petuate  itself  \ 


426  A    SKETCH   OF   THE   HISTORY    OF   THE 

character  tends  to  permanence — evil  character,  as  well  as 
good.  What  the  actual  results  will  be  can  be  learned  only 
from  revelation.  Miiller  holds  that  the  divine  love  will 
never  abandon  men  until  they  have  become  hardened  against 
its  influences  and  efforts.  His  conclusion  is  that  the  text 
(Matt.  xii.  31,  32) :  "  All  manner  of  sin  and  blasphemy  " — 
that  is,  every  sin,  even  blasphemy — "  shall  be  forgiven  unto 
men ;  but  the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  not 
be  forgiven  unto  men  ....  neither  in  this  world,  neither 
in  the  world  to  come  " — is  to  be  taken  as  a  distinct  declara- 
tion that  all  sins,  except  one,  will  be  forgiven  either  before 
or  after  the  consummation  of  the  Iledeemer's  kingdom ;  that 
is,  in  the  present,  or  the  future,  seon. 

The  theory  of  an  eventual  extinction  of  the  wicked  has 
few  adherents  among  the  eminent  German  theologians. 
Rothe  is  its  principal  advocate ;  and  in  his  system  it  is  con- 
nected with  his  peculiar  view  of  the  relation  of  spirit  to  mat- 
ter, and  of  the  development  and  immortality  of  the  soul  as 
contingent  on  its  own  holy  action. 

Itothe's  elaborate  discussion  of  the  topic  of  Future  Pun- 
ishment is  found  in  his  posthumous  Dogmatlh  (pp.  132-169, 
291-336).  The  most  of  the  Saviour's  utterances  on  this  sub- 
ject, he  asserts,  relate  to  what  is  to  occur  prior  to  the  last 
judgment.  At  the  first  glance,  Jesus  appears  to  teach  the 
endless  punishment  of  all  who  enter  Gehenna.  This,  how- 
ever, is  not  the  fact.  The  word  aionios  (alcovio^),  which  oc- 
curs in  Matt.  xxv.  41,  46,  is  used  in  the  Scriptures  in  a  more 
lax  sense.  It  signifies,  not  an  indefinitely  long  time,  but  the 
longest  time  which  can  belong  to  an  object,  in  accordance 
with  its  nature.  There  are  many  examples  of  this  restricted 
meaning :  e.  g.,  Exod.  xxi.  6,  Deut.  xv.  17.  In  Jude  (ver.  6, 
cf .  2  Pet.  ii.  4),  a  stronger  term  (atSto?),  is  applied  to  a  ter- 
minable period.  As  to  the  opinion  of  the  Jews,  in  the  time 
of  Christ,  respecting  the  duration  of  future  punishment, 
they  were  not  agreed  on  this  point ;  and  if  they  had  been, 
this  does  not  authorize  us  to  conclude  that  he  followed  the 


DOCTEINE    OF    FUTURE   PUNISHMENT,  42Y 

popular  view.  Eternal  life  and  eternal  death  are  spoken  of 
together ;  but  if  "  eternal "  denotes  the  longest  time  which 
the  conception,  or  nature,  of  an  object  admits  of,  that  fact 
presents  no  difficulty.  Of  the  wicked  it  is  only  said,  in 
Matt.  XXV.  41,  46,  that  "during  the  continuance  of  their 
stay  in  Gehenna^  their  pain  will  not  cease,  without  any  de- 
termination of  the  question  whether  that  stay  will,  or  will 
not,  be  endless  "  (p.  138).  If  Matt.  xxvi.  24,  Mark  xiv.  21 
(cf.  Luke  xxii.  22)  refer  to  Judas,  these  expressions  are  jus- 
tified on  the  supposition  that  Judas  was  eventually  to  cease 
to  exist.  The  statements  of  Jesus  in  Matt.  v.  26,  xii.  32  (cf. 
Mark  iii.  29)  oblige  us  to  restrict  the  sense  of  aionios.  The 
few  passages  in  his  teaching,  which  do  not  refer  to  the  in- 
termediate state — for  to  this  Rothe  applies  all  those  cited 
above,  even  Matt.  xxv.  41, 46 — indicate  that  the  unpardoned 
will  gradually  be  deprived  of  sense  and  being :  e.  g.^  Matt.  x. 
28,  Luke  xii.  5.  This  opinion  was  not,  Rothe  affirms,  un- 
known to  the  Jews :  it  is  expressed  in  the  apocryphal  4th 
Book  of  Ezra.  The  terms  by  which  the  Apostles  denote 
perdition  (o  6\e^po<;  al(ovoL<;,  r)  dwooiXeia,  6  ^dvaro^,  rj  (j>^opd) 
most  naturally  signify  annihilation  of  soul,  as  well  as  of 
body ;  especially  as  Paul  (Tit.  i.  2,  Rom.  xvi.  25,  Eph.  iii.  9) 
uses  aionios  {ai(ovLo^)  in  the  looser  sense  of  the  term.  Rev. 
xiv.  11,  XX.  10,  must  be  understood  in  the  light  of  Rev.  xx. 
14  and  xvii.  8.  The  idea  of  annihilation  is  involved  in  John 
vi.  39,  40,  44,  54,  Matt.  x.  28,  30,  John  iii.  15,  16,  x.  28, 
Luke  xvii.  39,  ix.  24,  25,  Matt.  vii.  13,  Phil.  i.  28,  iii.  19, 
Gal.  vi.  8,  1  John  iii.  15  (cf.  Rev.  xx.  4,  5),  and  1  John  v. 
16,  17,  Heb.  X.  39,  vi.  8,  x.  27,  2  Pet.  ii.  1,  3,  ii.  12,  19,  Jude 
10,  12, 19  ;  cf.  20,  21,  etc.  Rothe  (p.  152)  presents  a  concise 
statement  of  the  objections  which  have  been  brought,  on 
grounds  of  reason  and  Christian  feeling,  to  the  doctrine  of 
endless  punishment,  and  subjects  them  to  criticism.  On  the 
supposition  of  a  final  impenitence  in  the  condemned,  eternal 
punishment  is  fully  suited  to  their  guilt.  The  possibility  of 
final  impenitence  cannot  be  denied.     The  end  of  God,  so  far 


428  A    SKETCH    OF   THE   HISTORY    OF   THE 

as  the  individual  is  concerned,  may  be  baffled  by  his  own  per- 
versity ;  though  not  the  comprehensive  end  of  God  in  crea- 
tion. Reformation  is  not  tlie  sole — it  is  not  the  proper  and 
immediate — design  of  punishment.  This  has  its  end  in  it- 
self. Punishment  need  not  and  ought  not  to  cease  for  the 
reason  that  the  recovery  of  the  transgressor  is  no  longer  to 
be  hoped  for.  The  pain  of  the  lost  may  not  consist  in  such 
reproaches  of  conscience  as  might  involve  an  actual  or  possi- 
ble repentance,  but  rather  in  the  incessant  experience  of  the 
absolute  fruitlessness  of  their  rebellion  against  God,  of  the 
hostile  relation  of  the  whole  created  universe  to  them  on  ac- 
count of  this  rebellion,  and  of  the  rage  and  hatred  against 
God  and  all  his  creation,  which  perpetually  blaze  up  anew 
within  their  souls.  But  other  objections  to  the  doctrine  of 
endless  suffering  Rothe  considers  valid.  The  necessary  dis- 
turbance of  the  happiness  of  the  redeemed,  and  the  divine 
plan  of  the  world,  with  which  the  endless  continuance  of  sin 
is  held  to  be  incongruous,  are  among  these  objections.  ]S"o 
conceivable  reason  can  be  given  why  the  hopelessly  wicked 
should  be  kept  in  being :  the  notion  that  their  endless  suffer- 
ing is  required  as  a  warning  is  groundless.  Final  impeni- 
tence, on  the  supposition  that  the  pains  of  hell  are  never  to 
cease,  would  be  psychologically  inexplicable.  Yet  in  this 
life,  and  in  the  interval  prior  to  the  judgment,  all  the  means 
of  grace  will  have  been  exhausted  upon  such  as  at  that  time 
remain  impenitent.  The  only  satisfactory  solution  of  the 
problem  is  found  in  the  supposition  of  a  gradual  wearing 
out  and  extinction  of  their  being.  This  will  be  the  lot  of 
those  who  persist  to  the  last  day  in  their  resistance  to  the 
Spirit — of  those  who  are  guilty  of  the  unpardonable  sin. 
Rothe  lays  great  stress  on  the  results  to  be  expected  from 
the  grace  of  God,  beyond  the  bounds  of  this  life,  in  the  in- 
termediate state.  Among  the  passages  on  which  he  founds 
this  expectation,  are  included,  of  course,  1  Peter  iii.  19,  20, 
iv.  6. 

With  the  foregoing  notice  of  the  opinions  of  celebrated 


DOCTRINE  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.  429 

German  theologians,  we  may  connect  a  brief  description  of 
the  views  of  a  distinguished  Danish  theologian  of  the  evan- 
gelical type,  Martensen,  as  they  are  expressed  in  his  Dog- 
matik  (pp.  534-544).  "  Shall  the  development  of  the  world 
end  in  a  dualism  ? "  Is  there  an  eternal  damnation,  or  a 
final  restoration  of  all  moral  beings  ?  The  church  has  never 
been  willing  to  accept  this  last  hypothesis,  both  on  grounds 
of  Scripture,  and  from  the  feeling  that  the  Christian  idea  of 
redemption  would  lose  something  of  its  profound  earnestness. 
On  the  contrary,  however,  the  doctrine  of  restoration,  which 
has  appeared  and  reappeared  at  different  times  in  the  church, 
is  not  without  support  in  the  Scriptures,  and  has  sprung  up, 
not  always  from  a  lack  of  earnestness,  but  from  a  feeling 
of  humanity,  founded  in  the  very  nature  of  Christianity. 
Here  then  is  an  antinomy — a  seeming  contradiction. 

This  antinomy  is  found  in  the  Scriptures.  There  are 
passages  which,  taken  in  their  full  weight — "  nach  ihrem 
gamen  Gewicht  genoramen " — ^most  expressly  assert  eternal 
damnation.  There  is  "  the  unquenchable  fire,"  "  the  worm 
that  never  dieth,"  the  "  sin  unto  death,"  the  sin  that  "  shall 
not  be  forgiven."  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  1  Cor.  xv. 
26-28,  Eph.  i.  10,  1  Cor.  xv.  22  (cf.  Matt.  xix.  26),  from 
which,  unless  the  force  of  these  expressions  is  curtailed,  the 
notion  of  a  universal  restoration  cannot  be  eliminated.  That 
God's  Word  cannot  contradict  itself  and  that  this  antinomy 
must  admit  of  some  solution,  is  conceded.  But  no  solution 
is  given.  May  it  not  be,  asks  the  author,  that  the  solution 
is  wisely  withheld  from  us  as  long  as  we  are  in  this  stage  of 
our  being  ? 

But  the  same  antinomy,  Martensen  proceeds  to  say, 
emerges  in  our  own  reasonings  on  the  subject.  From  the 
point  of  view,  which,  to  be  sure,  for  Christian  reflection,  is 
the  highest — that  of  the  teleology  of  divine  love,  we  are  led 
to  the  doctrine  of  restoration.  The  end  of  God  in  creation, 
does  not  look,  as  the  Pantheist  assumes,  at  the  kingdom  in 
general,  but  at  the  well-being  of  each  individual.     The  idea 


430  A    SKETCH    OF   THE   HISTORY   OF   THE 

that  the  end  is  reached  in  the  manifestation  of  punitive  jus- 
tice, does  not  satisfy  the  mind ;  if  there  is  a  will  which 
eternally  withstands  God,  there  is  a  barrier  which,  the  divine 
love  never  overcomes.  The  power  of  love  reaches  its  end, 
not  when  beings  bow  the  knee  by  compulsion — which  would 
only  be  a  revelation  of  might — but  when  all  bow  the  knee 
to  Christ  with  willing  consent.  On  the  contrary,  the  anthro- 
pological, psychological,  and  ethical  considerations,  the  facts 
of  life,  lead  us  to  the  doctrine  of  eternal  condemnation.  Man 
is  free ;  he  is  not  compelled  to  repent ;  salvation  is  not  a 
process  of  nature ;  the  hardening  of  the  heart  is  possible. 
The  time  must  come  when  the  possibility  of  conversion  is 
gone ;  w^hen  "it  is  too  late."  In  conversion,  not  only  the 
abstract  power  is  needful,  but  also  the  order  of  things,  the 
environing  circumstances,  in  which  trial  and  probation  have 
their  place.  For  the  condemned,  there  is  no  future  ;  there  is 
only  the  retrospect  of  a  lost  opportunity,  a  wasted  life.  There 
is  an  inward  demand  in  the  soul  of  the  lost  for  the  realiza- 
tion of  that  which  is  abstractly  possible,  while  all  the  condi- 
tions of  that  realization  are  wanting.  This  is  "  the  worm 
that  never  dieth."  Shakespeare  has  helped  us  to  imagine  that 
desperate  condition,  in  such  a  conception  as  that  of  Lady 
Macbeth,  wandering  about  in  her  sleep,  seeking  in  vain  to 
wash  the  ineffaceable  stain  of  blood  from  her  hand.  Here 
is  no  true,  no  fruitful  contrition ;  no  change  of  will. 

The  theological  idea  leads  us  to  restoration.  Hence  this 
doctrine  was  found  mostly  in  the  Greek  Church  ;  the  anthro- 
pological idea  tends  to  the  opposite  doctrine,  which  accord- 
ingly was  defended  by  Augustine,  and  has  had  fewer  to  dis- 
sent from  it  in  the  "Western  Church. 

The  theory  of  annihilation  does  not  solve  the  antinomy. 
This  theory  is  not  supported  by  the  Scriptures  :  it  leaves  tlie 
fatherly  love  of  God  baffled  in  its  aim  and  end.  The  idea 
that  those  guilty  of  the  unpardonable  sin  serve  out  their  time 
of  punishment,  and  are  then  delivered,  besides  the  exegeti- 
cal  difficulties  which  lie  against  it,  gives  no  rational  expla- 


DOCTRINE    OF   FUTURE   PUNISHMENT.  431 

nation  of  the  way  in  which  conversion,  in  such  cases,  is  to  be 
secured.  For  it  is  not  only  a  right  knowledge  of  sin  that  is 
required,  but  the  beginning  of  a  new  life. 

The  antinomy  must,  therefore,  be  left  standing.  There  is 
a  will  of  God,  and  in  this  sense,  a  design  that  all  should  be 
saved  :  there  is  a  possibility  that  such  wdll  be  the  actual  fact, 
but  the  opposite  is  also  possible  (p.  543). 

In  the  annals  of  English  theology,  a  noted  representative 
of  the  annihilation  doctrine  is  John  Locke.  In  his  Reason- 
ableness of  Christianity^  he  shows  himself  a  literalist  in  his 
interpretation  of  the  word  "  death.'^  He  understands  that 
Adam  was  threatened  with  the  literal  destruction  of  soul  and 
body  ;  that  he  and  his  race  are  saved  from  this  penalty  by 
the  work  of  Christ,  and  put  upon  a  new  probation,  under 
"  the  law  of  faith  ;  "  that  those  who  fail  to  fulfill  the  condi- 
tions on  which  "  life  "  is  offered  in  the  Gospel  will  undergo 
the  penalty  of  annihilation,  and  will  forever  cease  to  be. 

Of  the  modern  English  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  the  ex- 
tinction of  souls,  the  most  prominent  is  Archbishop  Whately. 
In  his  work  on  The^  Future  State  (Lect.  viii.)  he  sets  forth 
his  opinions.  The  words  translated  "  destruction,"  and  the 
word  "  death,"  as  these  terms  are  applied  in  the  Scriptures 
to  the  lot  of  the  finally  impenitent,  he  takes  in  the  most  lit- 
eral meaning.  He  also  maintains  the  opinion,  which  was 
occasionally,  broached  in  the  middle  ages,  but  was  counted 
heretical,  that  the  souls  of  men  are  in  an  unconscious  state 
during  the  interval  between  death  and  the  general  resurrec- 
tion. 

In  recent  times  the  doctrine  of  universal  restoration  has 
been  espoused  by  a  number  of  theologians,  of  conspicuous 
ability,  in  England.  John  Foster  is  one  of  the  most  noted 
of  these.  His  position  is,  that  the  endless  punishment  of 
men  for  the  sins  of  this  life  would  be  inconsistent  with  the 
equity  of  the  divine  administration.  He  assumes  that  their 
nature,  at  tlie  start,  is  so  "  fatally  corrupt,"  and  their  circum- 
stances so  unfavorable,  that  there  is  no  hope  for  them,  save 


432  A   SKETCH    OF    THE    HISTORY   OF   THE 

in  an  operation  of  grace  ah  extra,  which  is  arbitrary  and  dis- 
criminative on  the  part  of  the  sovereign  Agent,  and  inde- 
pendent of  the  will  of  man.  To  the  objection  that  punish- 
ment is  endless,  because  there  is  an  endless  continuance  in 
sinning,  he  answers  that  it  is  the  doom  of  the  condemned 
which  "  necessitates  a  continuance  of  the  criminality,"  for 
this  is  a  doom  to  sin  as  well  as  to  suffer.  "  Virtually  there- 
fore, the  eternal  punishment  is  the  punishment  of  the  sins 
of  time."  As  to  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  Foster  remarks, 
that  the  terms  "  everlasting,"  "  eternal,"  "  forever,"  original 
or  translated,  are  often  employed  in  the  Bible,  as  well  as 
other  writings,  under  great  and  various  limitations  of  im- 
port. But  "  how  could  the  doctrine  have  been  more  plainly 
and  positively  asserted,  than  it  is  in  the  Scripture  language  ? " 
To  this  Foster  answers,  that  we  are  able  to  express  it  so  as  to 
leave  no  possibility  of  a  misunderstanding  of  our  language ; 
and  this  was  equally  possible  to  the  biblical  writers.  The 
terms  they  use  are  designed  to  magnify,  to  aggravate,  rather 
than  to  define  the  evil  threatened.  The  great  difference  of 
degrees  of  future  punishment,  so  plainly  stated  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, is  said  to  be  an  argument  of  some  weight  against  its 
perpetuity.  If  a  limited  measure  of  punishment  is  consist- 
ent with  equity,  then  a  limited  duration  may  be  ;  the  argu- 
ment from  the  alleged  infinite  evil  of  sin,  in  one  case  as 
much  as  the  other,  is  set  aside.* 

Another  English  theologian,  whose  writings  on  this  sub- 
ject have  excited  much  attention,  is  the  late  Be  v.  F.  D. 
Maurice.  His  opinions  are  presented  in  his  Commentary  on 
John^s  Gosjpel^  his  Theological  Essays — the  last  essay  in  the 
volume — and  in  his  Letter  to  Dr.  Jelf.  In  this  last  publica- 
tion, Mr.  Maurice  denies  that  he  is  a  Universalist.  Whether 
suffering  will  be  without  end  in  the  future  life,  is  a  point  on 
which  he  professes  himself  unable  to  affirm  or  deny.  His 
position  is  that  of  nescience.     Nothing,  as  he  thinks,  is  re- 

♦  Life  and  Correspondence  of  John  Foster^  ii.,  333  seq. 


DOCTRINE    OF   FUTURE   PUNISHMENT.  433 

vealed  with  regard  to  the  duration  of  punishment.  The 
word  aionios  {alcovio^;)  signifies  eternal,  and  is  thought  by 
him  to  have  no  reference  to  time.  It  is  applied  in  the  'New 
Testament  to  God  and  to  things  extra-temporal.  It  denotes 
not  duration,  but  a  state  or  quality.  "  Eternal "  death  (or 
punishment)  is  the  opposite  of  "  eternal  life,"  as  this  is  de- 
fined by  the  Apostle  John.  It  is  the  condition  of  a  soul  be- 
reft of  the  fellowship  of  God  ;  but  on  the  question  how  long 
this  state  will  continue,  the  word  "  eternal "  sheds  no  light. 
"  Life  eternal "  is  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  the  quality 
termed  "  eternal "  is,  in  its  entirety,  in  that  life  now,  in  the 
case  of  every  one  who  is  possessed  of  it. 

With  respect  to  the  English  Episcopal  Church,  since  the 
publication  of  the  Assays  and  Heviews,  the  civil  courts  have 
decided  that  the  Articles  do  not  inculcate  the  doctrine  of 
endless  punishment.  In  the  revision  of  the  Articles  under 
Elizabeth,  when  the  forty-two  were  reduced  to  thirty-nine, 
the  forty-second  Article,  in  which  eternal  punishment  had 
been  directly  asserted,  was  among  those  left  out.  This  was 
not  because  the  revisers  of  the  Articles  disbelieved  the  doc- 
trine— a  doctrine  which  would  seem  to  be  implied  in  Art. 
XYII.  (Of  Predestination  and  Election) — but  it  was  omitted 
for  other  reasons.  Inasmuch,  however,  as  this  tenet  had 
once  been  inserted  in  the  Creed,  and  had  been  afterwards 
deliberately  omitted,  the  judicial  decision  was  that  clerg}^- 
men  who  subscribe  to  the  Articles  are  not  bound  to  believe 
and  teach  it.  How  extensively  it  has  been  abandoned  in 
the  Anglican  Church,  at  the  present  day,  it  is  impossible  to 
judge.  A  fervid  discourse  in  opposition  to  it  by  Canon 
Farrar  has  lately  been  put  in  print.  He  describes  himself 
as  having  no  clear  and  decisive  opinion  on  the  question  of 
the  duration  of  future  punishment.  He  cannot  accept  the 
Romish  doctrine  of  purgatory,  or  the  "  spreading  belief  in 
conditional  immortality,"  or  the  certain  belief  that  all  will 
finally  be  saved.  Yet  the  final  sentences  of  the  sermon  ap- 
pear to  be  an  expression  of  this  last-mentioned  belief.  Dr. 
19 


434  A   SKETCH   OF   THE   HISTOKT   OF  THE 

Farrar  holds  that  aionios  {al(ovco<;)  means  "  age-long,"  not 
"  everlasting,"  and  in  this  sense  is  used  in  the  Bible  ;  that  it 
means,  secondly,  something  extra-temporal ;  but  that  it  does 
not  contain  "  the  fiction  of  an  endless  time."  He  holds 
that  "  Gehenna,"  as  used  by  Christ,  indicates,  not  final  and 
hopeless,  but  purifying  and  corrective  punishment,  an 
"intermediate,  a  metaphorical,  and  a  terminable  retribu- 
tion." 

Among  the  Non-conformists  in  England,  in  the  evangeli- 
cal bodies,  there  are  many  ministers  who  no  longer  believe 
in  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment.  A  competent  wit- 
ness, Rev.  Dr.  Allon,  in  a  biographical  sketch  of  Rev.  T. 
Binney,  prefixed  to  a  volume  of  his  /Sermons  (London, 
1875),  says  of  him,  that  "  he  refused  the  hard  and  terrible 
conclusions  of  Calvinistic  predestination."     Dr.  Allon  adds : 

"He  was  one  of  the  earliest  of  his  generation  to  maintain  the  broad 
universal  purpose  of  the  divine  Father's  love,  and  of  the  salvation  which 
is  proffered  through  Christ.  And,  it  may  be  added  here,  for  the  same 
reasons  he  rejected  the  dogma  of  eternal  punishment;  which  seems  pass- 
ing through  the  same  stages  of  instinctive  shrinking  from  it,  traditional 
aflfirmation,  subtle  disintegration,  and  religious  abandonment.  While 
Mr.  Binney  shrank  from  propounding  any  alternative  theory  of  the  des- 
tiny of  the  wicked,  he  distinctly  refused  to  believe  in  eternal  torments. 
He  felt  that  conclusions  from  which,  not  in  their  sinful  and  alienated 
but  in  their  best  and  holiest  feelings,  good  men  instinctively  recoiled 
could  not  be  possible  to  the  holy  and  loving  God.  He  felt  too  that  it  was 
not  possible,  as  with  some  mysteries  which  are  simply  things  unknown, 
to  bow  in  silence  before  these  conclusions.  They  involve  a  necessary  ap- 
peal to  moral  judgment  and  feeling,  and  if  in  this  appeal,  repugnance, 
and  not  sympathetic  conviction  is  produced,  there  must  be  reason  to 
doubt  their  correctness. 

"  His  own  conclusion,  avowed  in  many  conversations  on  the  subject,  was, 
'  It  cannot  be,  that  which  our  best  feelings  shrink  from  cannot  be  possi- 
ble to  God.  In  some  way  or  other,  he  will  solve  the  dark  problem  of 
evil  in  harmony  with  his  righteousness  and  love.'  And  here  he  was  con- 
tented to  rest.  Mr.  Binney  propounded  no  counter  theory  of  universal- 
ism,  or  of  repentance  beyond  the  grave ;  to  both  he  saw,  both  in  the 
statements  of  Scripture  and  in  the  moral  philosophy  of  things,  insuper- 
able objections.  He  thought  that  the  exegesis  of  Scriptural  representa- 
tions needed  a  thorough  re-examination ;  and  that  a  reasonable  and  revet- 


DOCTRINE   OF   FUTURE   PUNISHMENT.  435 

ent  interpretation  of  the  strong  language  of  Scripture  was  possible  which 
would  not  necessitate  the  dogma  of  eternal  suffering. " 

A  few  ministers  of  distinction  among  the  English  Congre- 
gationalists,  but  only  a  few,  favor  the  annihilation  doctrine. 

In  the  letters  of  Thomas  Erskine,  of  Linlathen,  the  au- 
thor of  the  noted  work  on  the  Internal  Evidence  of  Revelor 
tion,  the  doctrine  of  universal  restoration  is  professed  and 
supported.  The  main  foundation  of  this  belief  is  made  to  be 
the  fatherly  character  of  God  as  revealed  in  the  Bible.  A 
father  can  never  cease  from  the  endeavor  to  make  his  child 
righteous.  The  Father  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh  will  not 
throw  off  his  care  for  the  souls  of  his  children  when  they 
leave  this  world ;  the  supposition  that  he  will,  grows  out  of 
false  conceptions  of  his  justice  and  righteousness,  which  are 
not  separrable  from  his  love.  No  human  being,  it  is  held 
by  Mr.  Erskine,  can  be  beyond  the  reach  of  God's  grace 
and  the  sanctifying  power  of  his  spirit.*  The  love  of  God 
will  attain  to  its  end  and  aim.  This  he  supposes  to  be  defi- 
nitely taught  by  the  apostle  Paul  in  the  5th  and  11th  chap- 
ters of  the  Epistle  to  the  Komans.f  By  these  full  and 
explicit  declarations  of  the  apostle,  the  language  in  Matt. 
XXV.  must  be  intei-preted.  "  Eternity  has  nothing  to  do  with 
duration."  "  I  think  eternal  means  essential  in  opposition  to 
phenomenal.  So  eternal  life  is  God's  own  life ;  it  is  essen- 
tial life ;  and  eternal  punishment  is  the  misery  belonging 
to  the  nature  of  sin,  and  not  coming  from  outward  causes."  % 
"  I  do  not  believe  that  ala)vco<;,  the  Greek  word  rendered 
*  eternal'  and  *  everlasting '  by  our  translators,  really  has 
that  meaning.  I  believe  that  it  refers  to  man's  essential  or 
spiritual  state,  and  not  to  time,  either  finite  or  infinite. 
Eternal  life  is  living  in  the  love  of  God ;  eternal  death  is 
living  in  self ;  so  that  a  man  may  be  in  eternal  life  or  in 
eternal  death  for  ten  minutes,  as  he  changes  from  one  state 
to  another."  § 


*  Vol.  ii.,  p.  243.  t  P-  239.     X  P-  135.  §  P.  240. 


436  A    SKETCH   OF   THE   HISTORY   OF   THE 

One  of  the  earliest  American  works  in  defence  of  the 
theory  of  restoration  was  The  Salvation  of  all  Men  Ex- 
amined, bj  Dr.  Charles  Chauncej,  which  was  printed  in 
London  in  1784.  Dr.  Chauncey  advocates  this  theory,  .but 
he  maintains  that,  if  it  be  rejected,  the  alternative  doctrine 
which  next  to  this  is  best  supported,  is  that  of  annihilation. 
The  "  mipardonable  sin  "  is  a  sin  of  which  the  full  penalty 
is  exacted ;  but  this  penalty  is  not  everlasting.  The  reply 
to  Chauncey  by  Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards  is  marked  by  ex- 
traordinary logical  acumen,  and  by  no  small  degree  of  acute- 
ness  in  the  exegetical  part  of  the  discussion.  One  promi- 
nent topic  in  his  book  is  the  true  nature  or  end  of  punish- 
ment in  the  divine  government.  Edwards  argues  that  the 
penalty  of  sin  in  the  future  life  is  not  disciplinary,  but  vin- 
dicative in  its  intent.  If  it  be  of  the  nature  of  chastisement, 
why  is  it  called  a  "  curse  ? "  Dr.  Chauncey  had  asserted 
that  future  punishment  is  graduated  according  to  the  vary- 
ing deserts  of  offenders.  Dr.  Edwards  charges  his  opponent 
with  a  confusion  of  ideas.  If  all  the  condemned  are  pun- 
ished according  to  the  degree  of  their  guilt,  what  distinction 
is  there  between  him  who  suffers  for  the  unpardonable  sin, 
and  transgressors  generally  ? 

Since  the  rise  of  the  Universalist  denomination  in  this 
country,  numerous  works  have  appeared  on  the  subject  be- 
fore us  ;  but  it  is  impossible,  in  this  place,  to  refer  to  them 
individually. 

We  subjoin  to  the  foregoing  sketch  one  or  two  sugges- 
tions, which  may  afford  material  for  reflection  to  those  who 
are  interested  in  tracing  a  theological  system  to  its  roots,  and . 
in  observing  the  transformations  which  it  may  undergo  in 
the  lapse  of  time. 

Strict  Calvinism  was  a  symmetrical  and  coherent  system. 
It  was  constructed  from  the  teleological  point  of  view.  The 
starting-point  was  God  and  his  eternal  purpose.  The  end 
was  made  to  be  the  manifestation  of  his  love  and  his  justice, 
conceived  of  as  co-ordinate.     The  salvation  of  some,  and  the 


DOCTRINE    OF   FUTUEE   PUNISHMENT.  437 

condemnation  of  others,  are  the  means  to  this  end.  The 
motive  of  redemption  is  love  to  the  elect,  for  whom  all  the 
arrangements  of  Providence  and  grace  are  ordered.  The 
cap-stone  was  placed  upon  the  system  by  the  supralapsarians, 
who  followed  Calvin's  strong  language  in  the  Institutes  (but 
not  elsewhere,  especially  not  in  his  Commentaries)^  and 
made  the  fall  and  sin  of  mankind,  like  creation  itself,  the 
object  of  an  efficient  decree — means  to  the  one  supreme  end ; 
for  if  mercy  and  righteousness  are  to  be  exerted  in  the  sal- 
vation and  condemnation  of  sinners,  a  world  of  sinners  must 
first  exist. 

There  was  rebellion  against  this  system.  [N^ot  to  speak  of 
the  different  theology  of  the  Lutherans — in  the  French  Cal- 
vinistic  school  of  Saumur,  wherever  Arminianism  prevailed, 
in  the  modified  Calvinism  of  the  New  England  churches,  it 
was  asserted  that  in  "  the  intention  of  love,"  Christ  died  for 
all,  that  God's  love  extends  over  all,  in  the  sense  that  he  de- 
sires them  to  be  saved,  yearns  toward  them,  and  offers  them 
help. 

This  mode  of  thought  has  more  affinity  to  the  Greek  an- 
thropology than  has  rigid  Calvinism,  or  its  Augustinian  pro- 
totype. The  teleological  point  of  view  is  less  prominent ;  it 
stands  in  the  background.  The  universal  love  and  pity  of 
God,  the  broad  design  of  the  atonement,  are  the  central 
points. 

The  more  rigid  Calvinism  often  protested  against  this 
modification  of  the  system  :  it  considered  the  whole  theodicy 
imperiled  by  it :  it  saw  in  it  a  drift  and  tendency  towards 
other  innovations  subversive  of  the  system. 

For  if  this  is  universal,  yearning  love  is  at  the  basis  of  re- 
demption, will  it  not  be  suggested  that  this  love  vrill  not  fail 
of  its  end  ?  Will  the  heart  of  God  be  disappointed  of  its 
object  ?  Will  the  Almighty  be  baffled  by  the  creaturely 
will  ?  If  Christ  died  for  all,  will  he  be  "  satisfied  "  with 
anything  short  of  the  recovery  of  all  ? 

As  a  matter  of  historical  fact,  belief  in  restoration  and 


438       SKETCH    OF    THE    HISTORY    OF   FUTURE   PUNISHMENT. 

kindred  doctrines  are  seen  to  spring  up,  in  different  quarters, 
in  the  wake  of  the  mitigated  form  of  theology  to  which  we 
have  referred. 

[N^ot  that  such  beliefs  are  logically  required.  All  d  priori 
reasoning  must  be  subject  to  the  correction  of  experience. 
There  is  a  terrible  reign  of  sin,  though  all  sin  is  contrary  to 
the  will  of  God ;  there  is  a  development  of  sinful  charac- 
ter, a  hardening  of  the  heart,  a  persistent  resistance — "  how 
often  would  /  .  .  .  .  but  ye  would  not ;  "  "  woe  unto  thee, 
Chorazin,  woe  unto  thee,  Bethsaida ; "  there  is  a  stern,  trag- 
ic side  to  nature  and  to  human  life.  We  stand  within  a 
sphere  where  results  are  not  worked  out  by  dint  of  power, 
but  where  freedom,  under  moral  law,  with  all  the  peril,  as 
well  as  possibility  of  good,  which  freedom  involves,  is  an  es- 
sential attribute  of  our  being.  No  speculations  on  the  prob- 
lem of  the  theodicy  can  have  the  certainty  that  belongs  to 
the  law  which  is  verified  by  conscience  and  experience: 
"  Whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that  shall  he  also  reap." 


RATIONALISM.  4:39 


RATIONALISM.* 

At  the  threshold  of  all  enlightened  investigation  of  reli- 
gious truth  stands  the  question,  What  are  the  sources  of 
knowledge  on  the  subject?  On  this  first  and  fundamental 
question,  opinion  is  divided.  We  may  leave  out  of  the 
account,  for  the  present,  the  Eastern  Church,  which  has  now 
for  a  thousand  years  exhibited  few  signs  of  intellectual 
life,  and  these  mostly  in  the  shape  of  occasional  outbreak- 
ings  of  polemical  fervor  against  its  great  rival  in  the  West. 
Proud  of  its  illustrious  teachers  of  the  patristic  age — Chry- 
sostom,  the  Gregories,  Basil,  Athanasius — and  of  those  an> 
cient  councils  which  are  alone  regarded  as  oecumenical,  the 
Greek  Church  haughtily  denies  the  claim  of  the  Roman 
bishop  to  more  than  a  titular  and  honorary  precedence,  yet 
agrees  with  the  Latins  in  recognizing  tradition  and  church 
authority.  Turning  to  Western  Christendom,  we  find  three 
parties  in  reference  to  the  question  already  stated — the 
Roman  Catholic,  the  evangelical  Protestant,  and  the 
Rationalist. 

The  Roman  Catholic  and  the  Protestant  have  common 
ground.  They  both  acknowledge  a  supernatural,  divine 
revelation.  They  both  admit  an  authoritative  teaching,  ob- 
jective, or  outside  of  the  individual.  They  both  profess 
that  all  this  teaching,  all  of  Christian  truth  that  has  been 
revealed  from  heaven,  is  to  be  traced  back  to  Christ  and  his 
apostles.  It  is  only  since  the  Reformation,  to  be  sure,  that 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  thus  limited  its  doctrine  of 
tradition.     In  the  middle  ages,  tenets  were  in  some  instances 

*  A  Lecture  in  Boston  in  1870,  forming  paxt  of  a  Course  of  Lectures  by 
different  persons,  on  "  Christianity  and  Skepticism." 


440  RATIONALISM. 

attributed  to  a  post-apostolic  revelation.  This  is  done,  for 
example,  by  Gerson,  in  the  case  of  the  Yirgin's  Immaculate 
Conception  and  the  Assumption ;  and  by  Occam  in  respect 
to  the  dogma  of  Transubstantiation.  But  the  prevailing 
and  established  theory  now  is,  that  the  tradition  which  is 
the  supplement  of  Scripture  includes  only  apostolic  teaching 
orally  transmitted.  The  church  defines  the  faith ;  discerns 
more  and  more  of  its  meaning,  and  promulgates  what  it 
discerns,  but  adds  nothing  to  the  original  deposit.  But  the 
Eoman  Catholic  interposes,  between  the  individual  and 
Christ,  the  church ;  that  is,  the  visible  body  organized 
under  the  hierarchy  of  which  the  Roman  bishop  is  the  head. 
This  is  the  radical,  defining  characteristic  of  their  system. 
In  keeping  with  it,  the  church  is  held  to  be  at  once  the  in- 
fallible custodian  and  infallible  interpreter  of  both  Scripture 
and  tradition — the  written  and  the  oral  teachings  of  Christ 
and  the  apostles.  This  last  position,  together  with  the  the- 
ory of  the  church  that  underlies  it,  the  evangelical  Prot- 
estant rejects.  He  may  allow  that  the  oral  teaching  of  the 
apostles,  if  we  could  get  at  it,  would  be  as  authoritative  as 
their  writings  ;  but  he  denies  that  any  safe  and  sure  channel 
has  been  provided  for  its  transmission.  And,  even  as  to 
Scripture,  he  denies  that  the  church  in  any  age  is  an  unerr- 
ing expounder.  Hence  ail  that  part  of  the  Homan  Catholic 
creed  which  he  cannot  find  confirmed  in  the  Scriptures  he 
discards.  Tenets,  which,  if  they  claim  any  support  from  the 
Bible,  rest  on  alleged  obscure  intimations  of  Scripture,  are 
not  admitted  to  be  a  part  of  the  Christian  faith.  There  is 
truth  in  the  well-known  aphorism,  "  The  Bible,  the  Bible, 
is  the  religion  of  Protestants  ! "  It  is  perfectly  consistent 
with  this  position  to  hold  that  the  logical  implications  of 
the  primitive  teaching  are  more  and  more  unfolded  to  view 
in  the  progress  of  society ;  that  the  ethics  of  the  Gospel  are 
developed  in  new  directions  and  applications ;  that  Christian 
life  is  a  commentary  on  Christian  truth.  We  may  allow 
some  grains  of  truth  in  the  mystical  and  ideal  conception 


RATIONALISM.  441 

of  the  church's  authority  which  Mohler  and  other  liberal 
Catholics  have  undertaken  to  propound  ;  but,  when  all  rea- 
sonable concessions  have  been  made,  there  remains  a  radical 
antagonism. 

The  distinguishing  note  of  rationalism  is  the  rejection  of 
authoritative  teaching,  the  disbelief  in  supernatural  revela- 
tion. Whatever  special  view  he  may  take  of  the  Bible — 
whether  he  adopt  the  low  estimate  of  Thomas  Paine,  who 
said  that  he  could  write  a  better  book  himself ;  or  the  higher 
estimate  of  those  who  pronounce  it  a  lofty  product  of  human 
genius — the  Rationalist  denies  that  the  Bible  is  in  any 
proper  sense  the  rule  of  faith.  The  prophets  and  apostles 
teach  with  no  authority  that  does  not  belong  to  them  in 
common  with  all  poets  and  philosophers  and  preachers. 
There  is  nothing  properly  miraculous  either  in  the  origin  of 
their  doctrine,  or  in  the  evidences  that  support  it.  This  is 
the  common  ground  of  rationalism  in  all  of  its  various 
types.  The  Atheist,  the  Pantheist,  and  the  Deist  unite  in 
this  negation  of  the  supernatural  as  connected  with  the  origin 
of  Christianity  and  the  Christian  system  of  doctrine. 

I  am  aware,  that,  in  so  general  a  classification,  there  must 
be  embraced  under  the  term  rationalism  dissimilar  phases 
of  character  and  opinion.  There  are  Rationalists  in  fact, 
but  not  in  spirit.  If  there  is  positive  and  downright  infi- 
delity at  one  extreme,  there  is  an  approach  to  faith  at  the 
other.  There  are  men — a  numerous  class  in  these  days — 
who  can  believe  only  as  they  can  assimilate  religious  truth ; 
who  seek  for  it,  therefore,  with  an  earnest  heart,  though 
under  a  cloud  of  doubt.  Could  they  discern  the  harmony 
of  Christian  truth  with  their  intellectual  and  moral  nature, 
could  they  set  this  truth  in  a  close  and  vital  relation  to  the 
soul,  they  would  be  satisfied.  This  immediate,  living  per- 
ception is  what  they  most  crave.  For  such,  as  we  may  hope 
to  indicate,  there  is  a  way  out  of  their  present  position. 
Were  the  principle  of  division  some  other  than  the  one  we 

have  chosen — which  is  the  position  taken  with  reference  to 
19* 


442  EATIONALISM. 

the  sources  of  knowledge — they  might  fall  into  a  different 
category;  but,  as  long  as  their  criterion  for  judging  and 
ascertaining  what  is  true  in  religion  remains  a  purely  subjec- 
tive one,  they  adopt  the  distinctive  rationalistic  principle. 

Modem  scepticism  and  unbelief,  or  the  whole  movement 
which  in  its  different  phases  and  stages  is  termed  rational- 
ism, is  often  charged  by  Roman  Catholic  theologians  upon 
Protestantism.  It  is  unjustly  declared  to  be  the  legiti- 
mate fruit  of  the  Eeformation.  The  ancient  foes  of  Chris- 
tianity in  the  field  of  thought — Celsus,  Lucian,  Porphyry, 
and  the  rest — were  heathen  writers,  standing  outside  of  the 
church.  In  the  mediaeval  age,  scepticism  came  mostly  from 
the  Arabic  schools  in  Spain,  and  was  prevented  from  gain- 
ing a  foothold  through  the  efforts  of  Aquinas  and  other 
great  teachers  of  the  thirteenth  century.  But  before  the 
Reformation,  through  the  disgust  that  arose  against  the 
scliolastic  theology,  and  through  the  influence  of  classical 
and  literary  studies  connected  with  the  revival  of  learning, 
widespread  tendencies  to  scepticism  had  become  rife  in  the 
southern  nations  of  Europe.  Neander,  in  an  essay  read  be- 
fore the  Berlin  Academy,  quotes  a  remarkable  sentence 
from  a  letter  of  Melanchthon,  in  which  the  keen-sighted  re- 
former says  tliat  far  more  serious  disturbances  {longe  gram- 
ores  tumultus)  would  have  ensued  had  not  Luther  arisen  to 
turn  the  studies  of  men  in  a  new  direction.  The  Reforma- 
tion was  a  powerful  religious  movement,  which  was  strong 
enough  to  stifle  the  germs  of  scepticism  far  and  wide,  and 
which  made  itself  felt  with  most  wholesome  results  within  the 
Catholic  Church  itself.  The  rise  of  men  like  Fenelon  and 
the  Jansenists  must  be  ascribed  to  the  indirect  agency  of 
the  Protestant  Revolution ;  but  the  humanistic  spirit,  witli 
the  sceptical  turn  that  accompanied  it  among  the  Latin 
nations,  continued  in  France.  In  the  seventeenth  century, 
if  Luther's  Bible  was  the  popular  book  in  Germany,  Plu- 
tarch's Lives  had  a  like  place  in  France ;  and  the  spirit  to 


RATIONALISM.  443 

which  I  have  referred  found  expression  in  the  genial  scepti- 
cism of  Montaigne.  Without  doubt,  the  decline  of  relig- 
ion in  the  Protestant  churches,  the  incessant  controversies 
among  them,  and  especially  the  partial  sacrifice  of  the  Prot- 
estant spirit  of  liberty  in  a  partisan  zeal  for  creeds,  must 
bear  a  portion  of  the  responsibility  for  the  infidel  reaction 
that  followed.  The  Protestant  scholasticism  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  had  an  effect  like  that  of  the  Catholic  scho- 
lasticism of  the  fourteenth.  But  the  deism  of  the  last  cen- 
tury found  the  most  welcome  reception  in  France.  Voltaire 
was  not  bred  a  Protestant.  Owing  to  causes,  among  which 
the  degeneracy  of  Protestantism  as  compared  with  the  spirit 
of  piety  and  freedom  that  belonged  to  it  at  the  outset  was 
one,  deism  obtained  a  foothold  in  Germany  and  England, 
as  well  as  in  the  Catholic  countries.  As  Neander  truly 
remarks,  the  spirit  that  characterized  deism,  if  logical,  and 
consistent  with  itself,  must  lead  to  the  rejection  of  the 
supernatural  altogether.  Pantheism,  which  identifies  God 
with  Nature,  is,  therefore,  the  natural  successor  of  deism  ; 
although  the  forms  which  pantheism  took  were  due  to  the 
course  of  philosophical  speculation  of  which  they  were  the 
immediate  product.  At  the  present  time,  scepticism  and 
unbelief  are  far  from  being  confined  to  Protestant  lands. 
Renan  is  the  name  most  frequently  coupled  with  that  of 
Strauss.  Wherever  there  is  intellectual  activity  in  Catholic 
countries,  scepticism,  either  hidden  or  avowed,  is  prevalent. 
We  have  seen  lately  in  Spain  how  the  hatred  of  the  eccle- 
siastical system  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  takes  the 
form  of  a  rejection,  and  even  denunciation,  of  aU  revealed 
religion. 

Evangelical  Protestantism  puts  no  tyrannical  yoke  upon 
reason.  It  does  not  concede  that  any  contrariety  exists  be- 
tween the  Christian  faith  and  reason.  When  Augustine 
affirmed  that  faith  precedes  knowledge,  he  meant  that 
Christianity  is  a  practical  system,  adapted  to  practical  ne- 


444  RATIONALISM. 

cessities  of  the  soul,  and  must,  therefore,  be  applied  or  ex- 
perienced before  it  can  be  comprehended.  It  is  a  case 
where  insight  follows  upon  life ;  where  one  must  taste  and 
see:  but  that  good  reasons  can  be  given  for  the  act  of 
Christian  consecration  in  the  soul,  and  good  evidence  in  be- 
half of  the  truth  that  is  then  received,  he,  and  the  school- 
men who  followed  him  in  this  religious  philosophy,  f ullj  be- 
lieved. It  was  the  maxim  of  Socrates  and  Plato  even,  that 
men  must  be  improved  before  they  can  be  instructed.  Pas- 
cal was  not  a  sceptic  in  his  philosophy,  as  some  of  his  crit- 
ics have  charged:  he  maintained  that  faith  is  reasonable, 
though  not  reached  by  a  chain  of  reasoning ;  and  this  be- 
cause it  is  an  act  of  the  soul,  conformed  to  higher  intuitions. 
Hume,  Gibbon,  and  other  free-thinkers  of  the  last  century, 
caricatured  the  position  of  Christian  theology,  when  they 
ironically,  with  "the  grave  and  temperate  irony,"  which 
Gibbon  says  that  he  learned  from  The  Provincial  Letters^ 
spoke  of  the  truths  of  religion  as  received  by  faith  alone,  in 
the  absence  of,  or  in  the  face  of,  unanswerable  arguments. 
What,  then,  in  the  view  of  the  evangelical  Protestant,  is 
the  place  of  reason  ?  First,  he  allows  and  claims  for  the 
human  soul  a  native  recognition,  however  obscure  it  may 
have  become  through  sin,  of  the  verities  of  natural  religion 
— God,  freedom,  accountableness,  immortality.  Secondly, 
he  concedes  the  necessity  of  establishing  the  supernatural 
origin  of  the  gospel,  and  of  the  mission  of  Christ,  by  com- 
petent evidence.  Christ  and  the  apostles,  in  preaching  to 
Jews,  naturally  took  for  granted  that  groundwork  of  relig- 
ious beliefs  which  was  accepted  by  their  hearers.  They 
had  only  to  evince  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  Messiah. 
Yet  it  is  remarkable  how  frequently  in  the  discoTirses  of 
Christ  —  how  habitually,  it  might  be  said  —  an  appeal  is 
made  directly  to  the  moral  and  spiritual  nature.  How  con- 
stant is  the  recognition  of  those  primary  convictions  which 
are  inwrought  into  the  soul  by  its  Maker!  He  rebukes 
men  who  can  predict  the  weather  from  signs  in  the  sky  for 


RATIONALISM.  445 

not  interpreting  aright  the  signs  of  the  times,  and  for  not 
deducing  from  phenomena  that  fell  under  their  own  obser- 
vation the  proper  inference ;  and  he  adds  to  this  censure 
the  memorable  words,  "  Yea,  and  why,  even  of  yourselves, 
judge  ye  not  what  is  right  ? "  In  preaching  to  the  heathen, 
the  apostles  argued  the  case.  They  set  forth  the  truths  of 
natural  religion,  which  the  heathen  in  part  acknowledged ; 
and  then  they  proceeded  to  establish  by  testimony  the  facts 
of  the  life,  death,  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  It  was, 
throughout,  an  appeal  to  the  intelligence  of  their  auditors. 
So  it  has  been  since  among  all  considerate  defenders  of  the 
Christian  faith,  as  the  copious  library  of  "Apologies  will 
bear  witness.  Thirdly,  it  is  requisite  to  investigate  the 
question  of  the  authorship  of  the  books  which  enter  into 
the  canon,  wherever  honest  doubts  arise  on  the  subject. 
The  authority  of  the  church  on  this  point  a  consistent 
Protestant  cannot  admit.  The  church,  as  an  historical 
witness,  is  entitled  to  speak.  The  reception,  by  the  early 
church,  of  books  as  apostolic,  is  certainly  a  strong,  and  in 
many  cases  a  conclusive,  argument  in  favor  of  so  regarding 
them ;  but  the  church,  like  other  witnesses,  must  submit  to 
be  cross-examined.  We  discard  from  the  Old  Testament 
canon  the  so-called  apocryphal  books,  because  we  know  from 
ancient  testimony  that  they  formed  no  part  of  the  Scrip- 
tures that  were  used  by  Christ  and  the  apostles — no  part  of 
the  Hebrew  canon ;  and  we  charge  the  Church  of  Kome 
with  being  uncritical  in  incorporating  them  into  the  Bible, 
and  pronouncing  them,  as  it  does  in  the  Creed  of  Trent,  a 
part  of  Holy  Scripture.  Jerome  taught  the  reformers,  on 
this  matter,  what  Augustine  with  his  defective  scholarship 
did  not  know.  But  the  Protestant  is  equally  bound  not  to 
shrink  from  the  investigation  of  the  New  Testament  canon 
whenever  he  is  fairly  challenged  to  this  work.  Thus  in  the 
fourth  century,  as  Eusebius  tells  us,  there  were  several 
books  in  regard  to  which  the  church  was  divided  in  opin- 
ion; some  regarding  them  as  apostolic,  and  others  taking 


446  EATIONALISM. 

the  opposite  view.  At  this  time,  zeal  for  uniformity  was 
stronger  than  zeal  for  independent  study ;  and  the  doubtful 
questions  were  disposed  of  without  much  inquiry.  At  an 
earlier  day,  the  state  of  things  was  different ;  for  there  did 
not  exist  in  the  second  century  that  indifference  to  the  gen- 
uineness of  books,  and  ready  credulity,  which  Strauss  and 
many  other  infidel  writers  falsely  attribute  to  the  early 
church.  But  the  church  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries, 
on  these  particular  questions  to  which  I  have  referred,  was 
rather  uncritical.  Not  that  the  doubt  which  Eusebius  re- 
ports is  at  all  conclusive  against  the  books  in  question ;  but 
it  is  one  suflScient  reason,  if  there  were  no  other,  why  there 
should  be  candid  and  fearless  investigation  :  and  so  Luther 
and  the  first  reformers  held.  For  the  settlement  of  the 
canon  the  enlightened  Protestant  will  demand  historical 
testimony,  in  the  shape  both  of  internal  evidence  and  ex- 
ternal authentication,  of  such  a  nature  as  to  convince  the 
imbiassed  judgment.  Fourthly,  he  admits  that  no  amount 
of  evidence  can  justify  belief  in  propositions  that  are  either 
self -contradictory,  or  in  conflict  with  known  truth.  He  ad- 
mits, that,  if  such  doctrines  were  to  be  found  in  the  Bible, 
it  would  so  far  detract  from  the  authority  of  the  book,  and 
might  disprove  the  supernatural  origin  of  the  Christian  sys- 
tem. But,  just  here,  the  evangelical  Protestant  interposes 
a  protest  against  the  rash,  superficial,  and  sometimes  flip- 
pant assertion,  that  doctrines  are  irrational  because  they  are 
in  some  respects  mysterious,  or  because  they  clash  with 
somebody's  scheme  of  philosophy.  There  has  been  an  in- 
finite amount  of  confident  but  shallow  denial  of  Christian 
doctrine  on  grounds  which  a  change  in  the  reigning  phi- 
losophy renders  obsolete.  Pationalism  may  often  be  left  to 
confute  itself.  For  example,  the  old.  Kantian  Rationalism, 
which,  in  common  with  the  Anglo-French  Deism  that  went 
before,  cast  out  the  doctrines,  which,  like  the  Trinity,  it 
could  not  square  with  its  own  preconceived  ideas,  was,  for 
this  very  reason,  treated  by  Hegel  and  his  associates  of  the 


RATIONALISM.  44^7 

speculative  school  with  great  contempt.  The  professors 
who  had  supposed  themselves  to  have  reduced  Christianity 
to  a  rational  system,  by  eliminating  mysteries  and  trying 
everything  by  the  touchstone  of  common-sense,  found  them- 
selves charged  by  the  more  advanced  school  with  a  deplor- 
able want  of  philosophical  grasp.  Theories  of  religion  and 
philosophy  which  are  easy^  which  present  no  hard  prob- 
lems, no  unanswered  questions,  no  vistas  that  the  eye  can- 
not explore,  find  ready  credence  for  a  while ;  but  they  are 
short-lived,  because  flat  and  insufficient.  A  "  Christianity 
not  mysterious  "  can  take  but  a  feeble  hold  of  the  convic- 
tions of  men.  Fifthly,  the  evangelical  Protestant  is  free  in 
the  interpretation  of  the  Bible.  He  is  bound  to  no  view  of 
a  passage  simply  because  it  is  traditional.  Whatever  light 
antiquarian  and  philological  study  may  throw  on  the  pages 
of  the  Bible,  he  is  thankfully  to  accept.  The  text,  the 
translation,  the  exegesis,  are  fixed  by  no  authority  which 
supersedes  the  exercise  of  private  judgment.  Protestant- 
ism, on  the  one  hand,  vindicates  the  importance  of  learning 
as  an  aid  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures;  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  asserts  for  the  humblest  individual,  provi- 
ded he  be  endued  with  an  honest  heart,  the  power  of  arriv- 
ing at  the  general  sense  of  the  Bible,  and  of  attaining  the 
knowledge  that  is  requisite  for  the  guidance  of  life  and  the 
attainment  of  salvation. 

The  true  relation  of  philosophy  to  faith,  of  reason  to 
revelation,  it  is  not  difficult  to  define.  Philosophy  was 
styled  by  Anselm  the  ancilla,  or  handmaid  of  religion.  The 
office  of  philosophy  was  conceived  by  the  schoolmen  to  be 
that  of  elucidating  and  establishing  the  contents  of  faith. 
The  truth  which  faith  lays  hold  of,  reason  demonstrates. 
This  did  not,  of  necessity,  imply  a  degradation  of  philoso- 
phy ;  since  the  schoolmen,  one  and  all,  held  that  faith  has 
an  independent  root  of  its  own  in  our  moral  and  spiritual 
nature,  and   is,  in  the  highest  sense,  reasonable.     But  the 


448  KATIONALISM. 

limited  scope  allowed  to  philosophical  investigation,  without 
doubt,  hampered  its  development.  With  Descartes  the  new 
era  began.  It  was  recognized  that  philosophy  may  and 
must  start  with  the  data  of  consciousness,  and  erect  its  own 
structure  with  entire  independence ;  taking  nothing  for 
granted,  and  borrowing  nothing  from  other  branches  of 
knowledge.  And  here  we  come  to  the  precise  distinction 
between  philosophy  and  Christian  theology,  and,  by  conse- 
quence, to  the  real  relations  of  reason  and  faith.  Chris- 
tianity is  an  historical  religion.  Unlike  the  philosopher, 
the  theologian  proceeds  on  the  basis  of  historical  facts. 
These  facts — the  life,  miracles,  death,  resurrection,  of  Christ 
— constitute  the  starting-point  of  theology.  We  know  that 
a  sound  philosophy  must  harmonize  with  them,  or  find 
room  for  them,  because  we  know  that  they  are  well  attested, 
and  truth  is  not  in  conflict  with  itself.  When,  therefore,  a 
new  scheme  of  philosophy  is  broached  which  is  incompati- 
ble with  the  Christian  faith,  we  conclude  that  it  must  be  to 
that  extent  false.  Yet  an  inquisitive  Christian  mind  will 
not  be  satisfied  until  it  has  detected  the  particular  fallacies 
and  errors  which  enter  into  such  a  system  :  in  other  words, 
it  will  not  be  satisfied  fully  until  a  theoretical  has  been  ad- 
ded to  the  practical  refutation  of  it.  For  example,  the  Ger- 
man philosophers  after  Kant,  inspired  largely  by  Spinoza, 
brought  forward  pantheistic  systems  claiming  to  solve  all 
problems,  and  explain  the  universe.  These  systems  involve 
the  denial  of  a  supernatural  revelation,  because  they  deny 
the  supernatural  altogether ;  and,  of  course,  they  rule  out 
the  facts  of  Christianity.  This  was  clearly  seen  when 
Strauss  applied  the  Hegelian  principles  to  the  discussion  of 
the  gospel  history,  and  when  Baur  did  the  same  with  refer- 
ence to  the  origin  of  Christianity  and  of  the  J^ew  Testament 
writings.  It  is  plain,  that  when  the  facts,  the  reality  of 
which  is  thus  impugned,  are  established,  the  philosophy  at 
variance  with  them  is  overthrown ;  yet  the  confutation  is 
not  radical  and  complete  until  the  philosopher  is  met  on  his 


RATIONALISM.  449 

own  ground,  and  convicted  of  unfoimded  assumptions  or 
reasonings.  Then  his  edifice  is  subverted  from  the  founda- 
tion. Tlie  generality  of  Christians  are  not  called  upon  to 
undertake  such  a  work  :  it  belongs  to  thinking  and  educated 
men.  There  is  many  a  spectre  in  regard  to  which  the  un- 
learned Christian  has  a  right  to  say,  when  it  crosses  his 
path,  "  Thou  art  a  scholar,  Horatio  :  speak  to  it ! " 

If  rationalism  is  taken  in  the  broad  sense,  in  which  it  is 
equivalent  to  disbelief  in  revelation,  it  is  found  in  three  forms 
— atheism,  pantheism,  and  deism ;  atheism  being,  for  the 
most  part,  an  explicit  or  disguised  materialism.  The  criti- 
cal attacks  on  the  Scriptures,  dating  from  Semler,  would 
form  properly  a  distinct  chapter  in  the  history  of  rational- 
ism ;  yet,  as  they  have  sprung  from  a  philosophical  princi- 
ple or  bias,  they  might  be  placed  under  the  head  of  deism 
or  pantheism.  The  rationalistic  critics  of  the  school  of 
Kant  belong  under  the  former  head  ;  those  of  the  school  of 
Hegel,  under  the  latter.  It  is  not  my  purpose  to  treat  the 
subject  historically,  but  to  characterize  briefly  types  of  ra- 
tionalism which  now  present  themselves  to  observation. 

First,  there  are  those  systems  which  utterly  deny  or 
ignore  the  religious  nature  of  man.  The  most  prominent 
of  them  is  the  so-called  positive  philosophy,  in  the  form  in 
which  it  was  propounded  by  its  founder.  Mr.  J.  S.  Mill 
maintains  that  either  theism  or  atheism  may  be  held  in 
consistency  with  positivist  principles.  This  position,  M. 
Littre,  the  leading  disciple  of  Comte,  earnestly  combats. 
Comte  was  himself  an  atheist.  This  is  the  proper  inference 
from  the  doctrines  of  his  system.  Religion  is  declared  to  be 
an  excrescence  upon  human  nature  ;  or,  rather,  it  is  one  of 
those  fancies  or  delusions  which  belong  to  the  childhood  of 
the  race,  and  vanish  with  the  development  of  intelligence. 
Comte  makes  the  incredible  mistake  of  looking  for  the 
prime  origin  of  religion  in  an  effort  of  the  understanding  to 
explain  the  phenomena  of  Nature.     Religion  he  makes  the 


450  RATIONALISM. 

result  of  the  personifying  instinct,  which  at  the  outset  en- 
dues all  things  with  personal  life.  The  errors  involved  in 
his  famous  generalization,  according  to  which  mankind  pass 
through  the  successive  stages  of  religion,  metaphysics,  and 
positivism,  have  been  frequently  exposed.  We  are  con- 
cerned at  this  moment  with  the  stupendous  mistake  which 
he  commits  of  ignoring  the  relation  which  religion  has  to 
conscience  and  the  deepest  feelings  of  the  soul.  One  would 
think  that  a  simple  survey  of  the  operation  of  religion  in  the 
world,  the  mighty  power  it  has  exercised  in  human  society, 
the  wide  space  it  fills  in  human  history,  would  be  sufficient 
to  convince  a  man  that  it  arises  from  native,  profound,  ine- 
radicable sentiments  and  tendencies  of  the  soul.  Even  the 
evil  that  religion,  when  unenlightened,  has  caused  in  the 
world — the  strife  and  bloodshed  and  misery — might  teach 
one  that  the  principle  or  sentiment  from  the  abuse  of  which 
all  these  baleful  effects  grow  is  an  indestructible  element  of 
human  nature ;  otherwise  the  poet  would  not  have  had  oc- 
casion to  write  the  familiar  words — 

**  Tantum  religio  potuit  snadere  malonim." 

Religion  is  rather  to  be  compared,  in  the  source  and  ex- 
tent of  its  influence,  with  the  social  tendency.  Some  who 
have  called  themselves  philosophers  have  said  that  society  is 
artificial ;  the  natural  condition  of  man  being  that  of  seclu- 
sion and  solitude,  and  social  existence  being  a  device  to  avoid 
certain  inconveniences,  and  secure  certain  comfoi-ts.  This 
theory,  if  it  ever  found  serious  acceptance,  was  long  ago 
given  up.  It  is  acknowledged  that  the  individual  by  him- 
self is  not  complete ;  that  we  are  naturally,  as  well  as  by 
grace,  members  one  of  another.  Solitude  is,  therefore,  one 
of  the  shortest  roads  to  the  mad-house.  The  marvellous 
gift  of  language,  the  instrument  of  social  intercourse,  is  the 
testimony  of  nature  that  we  exist  for  this  end ;  for  it  is 
hardly  probable  that  this  wonderful  power  was  given  us 


RATIONALISM.  451 

that  we  might  indulge  in  soliloquies.  Place  a  human  being 
in  utter  solitude  ;  suppose  him  to  be  ignorant  that  other  be- 
ings like  himself  exist :  the  sense  of  loneliness,  the  vague 
but  intense  craving  for  social  converse,  the  deep  yearning  of 
his  soul,  testify  that  he  is  out  of  his  element,  that  he  has  lost 
a  part  of  his  being.  There  is  a  nistcs,  an  unfulfilled  exertion, 
a  searching,  unresting  desire.  So  it  is  in  respect  to  religion. 
The  state  of  a  man  without  religion,  without  God,  is  similar. 
Our  belief  in  God  does  not  appear  at  first  in  the  form  of  a 
deduction,  in  the  form  of  a  proposition,  but  in  the  form  of 
trust,  reverence,  fear,  gratitude,  supplication — in  the  form  of 
dependence  and  obligation  ;  in  the  same  way  that  the  social 
instinct  makes  itself  manifest  in  the  child  reaching  out  and 
groping  for  another.  Psychology  is  too  often  defective  in 
failing  to  state,  or  even  to  consider,  the  propensities  of  the 
spiritual  nature,  on  which,  after  all,  human  experience  and 
history  so  much  depend.  The  evidences  or  arguments  for 
the  being  of  God  call  out  and  meet  an  inward  testimony  of 
the  soul,  of  the  character  which  I  have  indicated.  There  is 
an  inward  nisus,  as  in  the  eye  when  in  quest  of  light.  There 
is  a  gravitating  of  the  soul  towards  the  being  who  reveals 
himself  in  the  consciousness  and  in  the  law  that  is  written 
on  the  heart.  Men  like  Pascal  have  been  called  sceptics, 
only  because  they  found  belief,  not  on  external  proofs,  but 
on  the  intuitions  of  the  spirit. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  those  systems  which  are  allied 
in  spirit  to  positivism — whether  their  advocates  call  Comte 
their  master,  or,  abjuring  him,  claim  to  be  followers  of 
Hume,  or  to  follow  nobody — have  strong  affinities,  not  to 
say  a  logical  relationship,  with  materialism  and  atheism. 
Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  holds  to  the  relativity  of  knowl- 
edge— the  sceptical  doctrine  which  comes  down  from  the 
sophists,  that  nothing  is  known  as  it  is  in  itself ;  that  is,  that 
nothing  is  truly  known — and  from  this  assumption  he  de- 
duces the  corollary  that  God  is  utterly  unknown.  What  he 
or  it  is,  it  is  impossible  to  say.     But  religion  is  the  commu- 


452  RATIONALISM. 

nion  of  man  with  a  personal  being  ;  and,  if  God  cannot  be 
affirmed  to  be  a  person,  religion  is  no  more.  Mr.  Huxley, 
giving  to  albumen,  the  old  term  for  the  material  substance 
that  enters  into  living  beings,  the  name  of  "  protoplasm," 
avows  his  belief  that  what  we  call  the  soul  is  the  product  of 
a  certain  disposition  of  material  molecules.  But  then  "  mat- 
ter "  itself  is  said  to  be  only  a  name  for  states  of  conscious- 
ness ;  and  the  same  is  true  of  "  spirit."  Matter  and  spirit 
are  identified  in  a  sort  of  monism  that  denies  both,  or  as- 
serts both  to  be  phenomenal.  By  this  unexpected  turn,  he 
saves  himself  from  the  open  assertion  of  what  Sir  William 
Hamilton  likes  to  call  the  "dirt  philosophy" — the  philos- 
ophy, namely,  which  teaches  that  the  rational  soul  is  made 
of  dirt,  or  that  both  are  of  one  substance.  Mr.  Huxley  pro- 
fesses to  build  on  Hume.  He  speaks  of  metaphysics  in  a 
tone  of  supercilious  contempt ;  yet,  like  the  rest  of  the  ex- 
treme empirical  school,  he  is  unable  to  find  a  basis  for  in- 
duction, or  any  real  validity  for  the  generalizations  of  his 
own  science.  He  raises  the  question.  How  can  we  predict 
the  future  ?  how  can  we  know  from  our  past  experience  that 
the  next  stone  we  throw  into  the  air  will  descend  to  the 
earth?  Casting  away  all  metaphysical  theories,  he  pro- 
ceeds to  assign  two  reasons  :  First,  all  the  stones  that  have 
been  thrown  up  have  fallen.  But  the  question  is.  How  can 
we  infer  from  this  fact  that  the  same  thing  will  happen  ? 
On  what  ground  can  we  infer  the  future  from  the  past  ? 
Plainly,  he  does  not  advance  an  inch  in  solving  the  ques- 
tion. His  second  ground  is  equally  remarkable :  we  have 
no  reason  to  the  contrary,  but  every  reason  to  expect  that  it 
will  fall ;  that  is  to  say,  we  believe  that  the  stone  will  fall 
for  the  reason  that  there  is  every  reason  to  expect  it  will ! 
In  this  peculiar  style  does  our  great  foe  of  metaphysics 
handle  a  philosophical  question.  And  yet,  in  his  own  de- 
partment of  investigation,  he  is  an  able  observer  and  a 
learned  man.  Mr.  Mill  is  not  so  unwary  ;  still,  in  his  oppo- 
sition to  an  d^'iori  and  spiritual  philosophy,  and  in  his 


RATIONALISM.  463 

zeal  for  the  empirical  tendency,  he  barely  saves  himself  from 
pronouncing  the  human  mind  merely  a  series  of  sensations; 
he  offers  no  explanation  of  the' way  in  which  he  can  know 
that  any  other  being  exists  but  himself,  and  can  find  no 
theory  of  induction  which  does  not  involve  a  plain  paralo- 
gism. 

In  the  field  of  history,  the  empirical  school  has  found  a 
representative  in  Buckle — a  writer  who  has  dipped  into  a 
multitude  of  books,  but  brings  to  his  ambitious  enterprise 
no  thoroughness  of  learning  in  any  single  department ;  who 
starts  with  the  principle,  that  every  new  fact  is  the  necessary 
product  of  antecedent  facts,  and  that  both  Providence  and 
free-will  are  a  delusion,  and  count  for  nothing.  The  ma- 
chinery of  physical  laws,  either  material  or  intellectual,  takes 
the  place  of  personal  agency.  History  is  a  drama  where 
the  actors  are  automatons,  and  through  which  runs  no  divine 
purpose.  All  that  gives  interest  and  pathos  to  the  story  of 
human  affairs  vanishes  at  the  touch  of  this  pretentious  but 
contracted  philosophy.  It  is  pleasant  to  hear  the  masters  of 
historical  study  on  the  Continent,  as  De  Tocqueville  in 
France  and  Droysen  in  Germany,  utter  their  warm  protest 
against  the  narrow  theory  of  Buckle,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
inaccuracies  of  his  narrative.  On  both  these  points,  the  ul- 
timate verdict  of  aU  considerate  scholars  will  be  the  same. 

Secondly,  there  are  those — many  of  whom  are  not  to  be 
reckoned  under  the  class  last  named — who  deny  the  miracles 
of  Christianity.  This  unbelief  must  be  traced  ultimately  to 
a  want  of  faith  in  a  supernatural  order.  It  springs  from  a 
lurking  scepticism  respecting  the  primal  truths  of  religion, 
which  may  yet  be  received  through  the  force  of  a  traditional 
impression.  But  the  disbelief  in  miracles  belongs  to  many 
who  have  not  abandoned  the  belief  in  a  personal  God,  and 
have  no  thought  of  questioning  the  truth  that  man  has  a 
rational  soul.  There  is  a  deistic  as  well  as  a  pantheistic 
infidelity.  The  Epicurean  view  of  the  universe,  in  which 
the  Deity,  though  admitted  to  exist,  is  kept  aloof  from  the 


454  RATIONALISM. 

world,  and  not  allowed  to  concern  himself  in  human  affairs, 
much  less  to  interpose  supernaturally,  is  not  wholly  banished 
from  the  world.  The  real  alternative  is  atheism  or  panthe- 
ism on  the  one  hand,  and  Christianity  on  the  other ;  but 
this  is  not  at  once  perceived. 

That  the  apostles  testified  to  the  miracles  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament,  that  they  could  not  be  deceived,  and  were 
not  liars,  is  a  position  which  all  the  modern  assaults  of  scep- 
tical criticism  have  left  unshaken.  The  impregnable  char- 
acter of  this  position  is  every  day  becoming  more  manifest. 
It  was  admitted  by  Strauss,  Baur,  and  their  associates,  that 
the  apostles  testified  to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus ;  but  Strauss 
would  fain  establish  the  point,  that  they  did  not  thus  testify 
to  the  other  miracles  described  in  the  Gospels.  The  early 
date  of  the  synoptical  Gospels  absolutely  precludes  the  sup- 
position oi  Strauss.  If  the  resurrection  is  counted  a  myth, 
no  possible  explanation  of  the  origin  of  it  can  be  given,  un- 
less, at  the  same  time,  it  is  supposed  that  the  disciples  had 
witnessed  such  miracles  before  as  would  account  for  their 
expecting  it  as  a  possible  and  probable  event.  But,  if  the 
prior  miracles  are  credited,  there  is  no  longer  a  motive  for 
seeking  to  resolve  the  resurrection  into  a  delusive  vision  or 
dream  of  fancy.  Moreover,  it  is  evident  that  the  miracles 
are  so  intertwined  in  the  life  of  Jesus  with  his  words  and 
actions,  that  no  consistent  conception  of  that  life,  as  it  went 
on  from  day  to  day,  can  be  formed  in  case  the  miracles  are 
excluded.  Deny  the  miracles,  and  you  cannot  explain  the 
disciples'  belief  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah ;  you  cannot  ex- 
plain his  own  undoubted  words  in  consistency  with  the  hy- 
pothesis that  he  was  honest ;  and  -you  cannot  explain  the 
narratives  which  embody  the  testimony  of  eye-witnesses. 
It  is  remarkable  that  the  leading  advocates  of  the  mythical 
hypothesis  have  felt  obliged  to  give  up,  to  a  great  extent,  their 
favorite  theory,  and  to  resort  to  the  hypothesis  of  a  conscious 
deception  by  the  New  Testament  authors,  whom  they  unsuc- 
cessfully strive  to  bring  down  into  an  age  later  than  the  apos- 


RATIONALISM.  455 

tolic.  Henan,  too,  is  forced  to  adopt  the  notion  of  a  pious 
fraud  on  the  part  of  the  founder  of  Christianity  and  his 
chosen  disciples,  because  he  cannot  escape  from  the  fact  of 
contemporaneous  testimony  to  the  miracles,  which  yet  his 
narrow  philosophy  cannot  allow.  It  is  very  characteristic  of 
the  whole  method  and  spirit  of  Renan,  that  he  should  re- 
quire, as  an  indispensable  condition  of  faith,  the  performance 
of  miracles  at  Paris  before  a  council  of  savans.  The  moral 
relations  of  a  miracle,  apart  from  its  character  as  an  act  of 
power,  he  seems  utterly  to  overlook.  He  might  as  reasona- 
bly ask,  that  before  believing  in  the  facts  recorded  by  Euse- 
bius  of  the  devoted  heroism  and  endurance  of  Christian 
women  and  children,  who,  in  the  Roman  persecutions,  died 
for  the  faith,  some  persons  of  like  condition  should  consent 
to  go  through  the  same  sufferings  before  a  French  commis- 
sion :  not  that  the  evidence  by  which  miracles  must  be  es- 
tablished is  the  same  in  kind  and  degree  (this  is  not  the 
point);  but,  in  both  cases,  the  events  are  such  as  occur 
under  the  proper  moral  conditions  and  surroundings. 

It  may  be  said,  generally,  that,  of  all  the  recent  writers 
upon  the  Gospel  history,  there  is  no  one  who  makes  greater 
pretentions  to  critical  impartiality  than  Renan ;  and  yet 
there  is  no  one  who  is  more  obviously  under  the  sway  of  sub- 
jective standards  and  prepossessions.  One  of  his  principal 
objections  to  the  discourses  of  Jesus  recorded  in  John  is, 
that  they  do  not  suit  his  taste  ;  which  reminds  one  of  the 
lines  which  Goethe  puts  into  the  mouth  of  the  old  Rational- 
ist Bahrdt — 


"Ein  Gedanke  kommt  mirungefahr — 
So  red'te  Ich  wenn  Ich  Christus  war'."* 

But  even  Renan  involves  himself,  by  his  concessions,  in  a 
dilemma,  where  he  is  forced  either  to  admit  the  miracle,  or 

*  "Up  comes  a  thought  I  did  not  seek — 
If  1  were  Christ,  thus  would  /  speak.'* 


456  ,  KATIONALISM. 

to  impeach  the  truthfulness  of  the  founder  of  Christianity 
and  his  chosen  disciples. 

The  whole  course  of  sceptical  criticism,  if  attentively  fol- 
lowed, is  seen  to  be  leading  really  to  the  inevitable  conclu- 
sion, which  will  be  at  length  extorted  from  reluctant  minds, 
that  the  miraculous  events  which  are  set  down  in  the  Gos- 
pels actually  took  place. 

Thirdly,  there  are  those  who  admit  the  historical  truth  of 
miracles  and  the  fact  of  revelation,  but  deny  that  the  Scrip- 
tures are  inspired.  A  distinction  is  to  be  made  between 
revelation  and  inspiration.  It  is^  quite  possible  to  hold  that 
Jesus  performed  miracles,  and  rose  from  the  dead ;  to  hold 
that  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  ways  spoke 
unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days 
spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  disbe- 
lieve that  supernatural  guidance  was  given  to  the  minds  of 
the  sacred  writers.  They  were  left,  it  may  be  said,  to  com- 
prehend and  interpret  the  revelation  by  the  unaided  light 
of  their  own  understanding.  This  is  not  an  infidel  position : 
it  admits  fully  the  supernatural  origin  of  the  gospel ;  it  al- 
lows that  the  great  transactions  occurred  which  constitute 
the  historic  basis  of  revealed  religion.  God  has  made  him- 
self known  to  men  otherwise  than  in  the  stated  order  of 
nature  ;  but  the  view  to  which  I  refer  leaves  us  no  author- 
ized interpretation  of  the  facts — no  surety  that  the  prophets 
and  apostles  did  not  mistake  their  import :  it  leaves,  in  a 
word,  no  authoritative  teaching.  Whatever  varying  forms 
the  doctrine  of  inspiration  may  assume  from  the  hyper- 
orthodox  view,  that  the  words  are  dictated,  down  through  all 
the  grades  of  opinion,  evangelical  Protestantism  holds  and 
cannot  surrender  the  tenet  that  the  Bible  is  somehow  the 
rule  of  faith.  There  is  an  objective  standard — not  one,  if 
you  please,  that  dispenses  with  the  need  of  study,  of  com- 
paring Scripture  with  Scripture,  of  considering  the  circum- 
stances of  each  writer,  of  having  regard  to  the  progressive 
character  of  the  revelation — but  still  an  objective  standard, 


RATIONALISM.  457 

exalted  above  the  conjectures  and  speculations  of  tlie  indi- 
vidual— a  divine  testimony — an  umpire  to  end  the  strife. 
Inspiration  is  the  means  to  this  end.  Christ  told  his  follow- 
ers that  they  would,  after  his  death,  understand  what  they 
could  not  comprehend  before ;  they  would  be  guided  to  a 
true  interpretation  of  what  they  could  not  explain  in  his 
life  and  death ;  they  should  be  led  into  all  truth  in  regard 
to  him.  He  directed  them,  when  they  should  be  arraigned 
before  hostile  magistrates,  not  to  hunt  up  arguments  and 
devise  rejoinders,  but  they  should  have  given  them  what 
they  should  say.  Intuition,  under  the  illumination  of  the 
Spirit,  would  supersede  contrivance.  In  short,  they  were 
to  be,  and  were  qualified  to  be,  competent  expositors  of  the 
Gospel ;  and  their  teaching  was  to  have  a  normal  authority ;  it 
was  to  be  the  supplement  and  further  unfolding  of  his  own 
divine  instruction.  Inspiration,  therefore,  is  a  truth  concern- 
ing which  the  evangelical  Protestant  cannot  be  indifferent ; 
it  being  the  source  and  safeguard  of  authoritative  teaching. 

nationalism,  through  all  of  its  numerous  and  conflicting 
schools,  affirms  the  full  competency  of  the  human  mind  to 
discover  religious  truth  for  itself.  Underneath  the  rational- 
istic creed  there  lies  this  principal  assumption.  The  great 
fact  that  is  overlooked  is  the  fact  of  sin,  and  the  influence 
of  sin  upon  all  parts  of  human  nature.  The  truth  that  hu- 
man nature  is  not  in  its  normal  condition,  and  that  sin  has 
darkened  the  perceptions  of  the  soul,  is  avowedly  or  uncon- 
sciously set  aside.  The  Pelagian  theory  lies  at  the  root  of  ra- 
tionalism :  this  lies  at  the  bottom  of  its  denial  of  the  need 
of  external  authoritative  instruction,  of  an  enlightening  and 
quickening  influence  upon  the  mind  from  without.  The 
consequences  that  flow  respectively  from  the  acknowledg- 
ment and  the  virtual  denial  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  sin 
can  hardly  be  overstated.  This  doctrine  is  the  one  great 
postulate  of  the  gospel :  "  They  that  are  whole  need  not  a 
physician,  but  they  that  are  sick."  It  affirms,  against  Mani- 
20 


458  EATIONALISM. 

cliseism  and  dualism  in  whatever  form,  that  moral  evil  be- 
longs to  the  human,  creaturely  will,  and  comes  not  from  the 
Creator ;  but,  with  equal  earnestness,  it  asserts  the  deep  and 
universal  dominion  of  evil  among  men.  There  has  been  a 
separation  of  mankind  from  God.  We  behold  a  state  of 
things  which  compels  us  either  to  deny  that  evil  is,  and  to 
call  evil  good,  or  to  assume  a  mysterious  catastrophe,  of 
which  revealed  religion  itself  gives,  and  professes  to  give, 
but  an  imperfect  explanation.  But,  whatever  mysteries 
hang  over  the  origin  of  sin,  two  things  are  certain :  one  is 
our  personal  responsibility  for  what  we  are  in  character — a  re- 
sponsibility to  which  conscience,  the  highest  witness,  clearly 
testifies  ;  the  other  is  the  baleful  effect  of  sin,  not  only  on 
society,  not  only  on  the  pursuits  and  purposes  of  the  individ- 
ual, but  also  on  the  spiritual  perceptions.  It  is  a  depart- 
ment where  the  bent  of  the  will  affects  the  perception  of 
the  intellect ;  where  mind  and  heart  share  a  common  disas- 
ter. How  is  it  possible  to  look  abroad  on  the  world,  and 
see  what  men  are,  even  when  placed  under  the  most  favor- 
able conditions ;  to  review  the  course  of  history,  and  notice 
what  men  have  done — their  conduct  to  one  another,  their 
governments,  their  literature,  their  amusements,  their  social 
customs,  their  religions  even — ^how  is  it  possible  for  one  to 
look  within  himself,  and  interrogate  his  own  soul,  and  not 
acknowledge  this  great  fact  of  sin — acknowledge  that  a 
malady  has  infected  mankind,  differing  from  any  other  dis- 
ease only  in  this,  that  it  emanates  from  the  will,  and  in- 
volves guilt  ?  How  is  it  possible  to  ignore  a  fact  which  all 
deep-thinking  men,  heathen  or  Christian,  have  united  in  de- 
ploring— a  fact  which  Seneca  declares  almost  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Paul  ?  The  human  mind,  as  an  organ  for  the  dis- 
cernment of  God  and  divine  things,  is  not  in  the  condition 
in  which  it  would  be,  had  sin  not  perverted  its  powers. 
Vague  and  doubtful  apprehensions  need  to  be  enlivened 
and  confirmed  by  the  voice  of  One  who  speaks  as  one  hav- 
ing authority.     It  is  not  truth  alone  that  the  human  soul 


RATIONALISM.  459 

needs,  but  redemption  through  One  who  is  himself  the 
truth.  But  communications  of  truth  respecting  God,  and  our 
relations  to  him,  will  form  an  essential  part  of  the  process 
which  has  for  its  end  the  restoration  of  men  to  communion 
with  God. 

The  Pelagian  view  of  things  appears,  at  the  first  glance, 
to  be  the  easiest.  It  avoids  a  number  of  very  difficult  ques- 
tions which  theology  has  not  yet  succeeded,  and  perhaps 
never  will  succeed,  in  solving.  The  trouble  is,  that  it  omits 
to  recognize  or  take  into  the  account  vast  facts  which  ob- 
trude themselves  upon  observation  at  'every  turn.  How 
well  has  it  been  said  that  sin  is  the  one  mystery  that  makes 
every  thing  else  plain  !  Superficial  views  on  the  subject  of 
sin,  where  the  views  are  not  absolutely  false  and  anti-Chris- 
tian, lie  at  the  foundation  of  most  of  the  current  infidel 
theories.  A  truly  profound  and  just  view  of  this  sub- 
ject is  the  one  grand  corrective.  Every  system  of  panthe- 
ism assumes,  and  must  assume,  w^hat  the  healthy  moral 
sense  of  every  man  denounces  as  a  falsehood — that  the  en- 
tire course  of  this  world  is  normal,  and  conformed  to  the 
ideal ;  that  baseness  and  perfidy,  and  every  form  of  selfish- 
ness, are  well,  and  even  divine,  in  their  •  place.  It  is  no 
wonder  that  Spinoza  and  Hegel  betray  some  uneasiness  at 
what  are  the  necessary  ethical  implications  of  their  systems. 
Every  system  of  deism  likewise  assumes  that  man  is  able, 
without  aid  from  above,  to  acquaint  himself,  as  fully  as  he 
needs,  wdth  God,  and  to  deliver  himself  from  the  yoke  of 
evil.  The  Author  of  revelation  says  the  whole  truth  in  a 
word:  "Thou  hast  destroyed  thyself;  but  in  me  is  thy 
help." 

Let  full  justice  be  done  to  the  position  of  the  Rationalist : 
his  doctrine,  in  the  most  refined  form,  is  that  of  the  suprem- 
acy of  reason  and  the  moral  sense.  There  is  force  and 
plausibility  in  the  statement ;  but  let  one  consideration  be 
noted.  Suppose  that  I  am  driven  to  the  admission  that  rea- 
son and  the  moral  sense  within  me  are  not  quenched,  but 


460  RATIONALISM. 

perverted  and  obscured ;  and  suppose  that,  in  Christ,  I  rec- 
ognize one  in  whom,  being  sinless,  reason  and  the  moral 
sense  are  clear  and  perfect,  so  that  his  eye  sees  moral  truth 
with  an  infallible  discernment ;  suppose  that  my  conviction 
of  his  superiority  in  this  respect  is  deepened  with  every 
day's  contemplation  of  his  character  and  teaching,  and  that, 
the  more  I  assume  the  temper  of  a  disciple,  the  more  is  my 
moral  sense  quickened  and  clarified  through  contact  with 
his  spirit :  why  shall  I  not  recognize  him  as  the  authority  in 
this  province  of  morals  and  religion  ?  In  this  act  of  trust, 
do  I  not  establish,  rather  than  subvert,  the  supremacy  of 
reason  and  conscience  ?  Be  it  remembered,  also,  that  this 
relation  to  Christ  is  not  one  that  supplants  the  exercise  of 
my  intelligence  and  moral  sense ;  but  it  is  one  that  rectifies, 
and  at  the  same  time  constantly  develops,  elevates,  and  edu- 
cates, these  powers  of  the  soul.  We  call  him  Lord  and  Mas- 
ter ;  and  so  he  is  :  but  he  does  not  call  us  servants,  but  rath- 
er friends ;  for  all  things  that  are  made  known  to  him  he 
reveals  to  us.  The  relation  of  dependence  is  ever  turning 
into  that  of  fellowship  and  friendship,  of  sympathy  and  per- 
sonal insight. 

Let  a  man  discern  the  surpassing  excellence  of  Christ,  and 
the  germ  of .  faith  is  within  him.  Kemember  that  there  is 
an  order  among  things  to  be  believed.  You  are  conscious  of 
sin  and  moral  weakness ;  you  have  lost  that  filial  relation  to 
God  which  is  the  birthright  of  human  nature  ;  but  you  are 
struck  with  the  perfect  excellence  of  Christ  as  he  is  de- 
scribed in  the  Gospels.  Here  is  a  character  that  more  than 
fills  out  your  highest  conception  of  nobleness  and  virtue ; 
here  is  one  whose  filial  communion  with  God  sin  has  never 
broken.  This  character  of  Christ  is  the  witness  to  its  own 
reality.  It  is  no  product  of  imagination :  the  records  that 
exhibit  it  could  never  have  been  framed  by  invention.  But 
how  about  the  supernatural  facts  of  the  history  ?  They,  too, 
are  upheld  by  the  power  of  this  human,  and  yet  superhuman, 
excellence.     You  feel  that  the  works  of  Christ  are  no  more 


RATIONALISM.  461 

wonderful  than  his  words  and  his  life,  and  that  he  himself 
is  the  greatest  wonder  of  all.  Who  but  he  can  be  the  Eec- 
onciler  ?  Whose  hand  can  I  take  but  his  ?  But  he  proposes 
to  bring  us  out  of  our  separation  from  God,  and  rescue  us 
from  the  ruin  which  sin  has  brought  upon  human  nature. 
He  is  at  once  the  instrument  and  the  first  example  of  re- 
demption ;  for  in  his  own  person,  having  overcome  sin,  he 
overcomes  death.  He  is  the  power  of  life  to  all  who  come 
to  him,  infusing  into  them  his  own  holiness  and  peace,  re- 
connecting them  with  God,  saving  them  from  death.  It  is 
a  legitimate  progress,  then,  from  the  first  living  perception 
of  the  excellence  of  Christ  to  a  personal  trust  in  him  as  the 
Saviour,  and  to  a  discernment,  also,  of  the  inner  rationality 
of  the  method  of  redemption.  Difficulties  respecting  this 
or  that  portion  of  the  Bible  may  be  left  to  take  care  of  them- 
selves, provided  they  are  not  obstacles  in  the  way  of  a  prac- 
tical acquaintance  with  Christ.  Even  the  Bible  is  not  to  be 
interposed  between  the  soul  and  Christ.  Pie  was  preached 
and  believed  in  before  the  l^ew  Testament  was  written,  and 
to  those  who  knew  little  or  nothing  of  the  Old.  Salvation 
is  by  faith  in  him.  Believing  in  him,  we  stand  on  safe 
ground,  from  which  all  questions,  even  such  as  relate  to  the 
Scriptures  themselves,  may  be  studied.  No  loyal  disciple 
need  fear  the  displeasure  of  his  Master  on  account  of  intel- 
lectual difficulties  which  he  is  doing  his  best  to  solve. 

It  should  not  be  overlooked  that  Christianity  is  more  than 
theory  or  precept :  it  is  fact ;  it  is  a  great  act  of  love  and 
sacrifice — an  act  of  God  himself.  For  this  reason,int  can 
never  be  thought  out  by  an  a  jpriori  process,  or  brought 
under  the  category  of  necessary  truth.  As  sin  can  never  be 
explained,  in  the  sense  of  being  reduced  under  the  category 
of  cause^  and  effect,  like  a  physical  event,  for  the  reason  that 
sin  is  a  free  act,  so  it  is  with  redemption.  In  its  very  na- 
ture it  is  historical :  hence  philosophy  can  never  bring  it 
into  a  chain  of  necessary  conceptions.  Christianity  is  some- 
thing which  reason  does  not  evolve  out  of  itself,  but  wliich 


4:62  RATIONALISM. 

must  be  received  like  any  other  great  historical  transaction 
in  which  free-will  plays  the  essential  part. 

In  dealing  with  rationalism,  let  it  be  observed  that  it  is 
vain,  as  well  as  wrong,  to  attempt  to  check  the  freedom  of 
investigation  in  any  province  of  knowledge.  In  regard  to 
the  beautiful  sciences  of  nature,  the  rapid  progress  of  which 
is  a  leading  characteristic  of  the  present  age,  this  remark  is 
especially  pertinent.  Let  the  investigation  of  second  causes 
in  nature  be  carried  as  far  as  possible,  and  let  there  be  no 
hindrance  put  in  its  way.  A  jealousy  on  the  part  of  stu- 
dents and  ministers  of  the  gospel  with  reference  to  these 
branches  of  study  is  equally  unmanly  and  futile.  At  the 
same  time,  it  deserves  to  be  remarked,  that,  just  now,  the 
tendency  to  speculation  is  more  rife  among  physical  philos- 
ophers than  among  metaphysicians  ;  and  theories  of  nature 
are  brought  forward  which  have  a  very  slender  basis  of 
facts  to  rest  upon,  and  which  evince  a  wide  departure  from 
the  Baconian  method.  Those  philosophers  must  not  be  ten- 
derly sensitive  if  their  theories  are  subjected  to  a  rigid  criti- 
cism by  theologians,  who,  to  say  the  least,  are,  equally  with 
them,  trained  to  habits  of  logical  analysis.  We  must  be  ex- 
cused for  not  showing  the  deference  to  guesses  that  is  prop- 
erly paid  to  established  truth.  Again  :  it  is  unjust  to  charge 
the  clergy  and  theologians  with  a  standing  opposition  to  new 
discoveries  in  physical  science.  It  would  be  strange  if  the 
Christian  Church,  which  has  educated  the  European  nations, 
reduced  their  languages  to  writing,  founded  their  schools  and 
universities,  saved  the  ark  of  learning  in  the  midst  of  a  del- 
uge of  barbarism,  were  to  be  found  uniformly  an  obstacle  in 
the  path  of  scientific  progress.  The  fact  is,  that  almost  all 
new  discoveries  which  subvert  traditional  opinions  are  looked 
upon  at  the  outset  with  distrust,  and  meet  with  opposition. 
This  opposition  is  far  from  being  peculiar  to  theologians, 
even  in  the  case  of  physical  discovery.  Resistance  often 
comes  from  the  men  of  science  themselves.     Galileo,  the  old 


RATIONALISM.  "  463 

example  of  ecclesiastical  intolerance,  had  his  contest  to  wage 
with  them.  There  was  the  scientific  professor  at  Padua,  who 
could  not  be  induced  to  look  through  the  glass,  and  see  the 
moons  of  Jupiter.  Why  is  not  more  eloquence  expended 
against  the  narrowness  and  bigotry  of  scientific  men  them- 
selves in  respect  to  new  truth  in  their  own  department  ? 
And,  if  so  much  progress  is  claimed  for  the  physical  branch- 
es, why  may  not  some  progress  be  permitted  from  age  to 
age  in  the  understanding  of  the  Bible  and  of  the  nature  and 
boundaries  of  inspiration  ?  Once  more  it  must  be  said,  that 
the  natural  and  physical  sciences,  beautiful  and  useful  as 
they  are,  often  claim,  just  at  present,  a  higher  relative  place 
on  the  scale  of  studies  than  justly  belongs  to  them.  The 
study  of  matter,  even  the  study  of  living  beings  below  man, 
and  of  his  material  organism,  must  ever  stand  in  respect  to 
dignity,  as  an  instrument  of  culture,  second  to  the  studies 
that  relate  to  the  mind.  "  The  proper  study  of  mankind  is 
man."  Man,  and  the  products  of  his  activity — language, 
history,  literature,  art — are  the  grandest,  the  most  fructifying 
studies.  The  opposite  view  must  be  withstood,  because  it 
can  only  prevail  in  alliance  with  materialistic  tendencies  and 
influences.  The  study  of  material  nature  is  lauded  as  being 
an  observation  of  the  thoughts  of  God,  and  an  examination 
of  his  works,  instead  of  the  works  of  man.  But  the  human 
mind  is  the  great  work  of  God,  being  his  image.  More  is  to 
be  learned  from  the  mind  of  Shakespeare,  concerning  God  its 
Creator,  than  can  be  gathered  from  the  astronomic  system — 
infinitely  more.  We  would  not  disparage  physical  studies ; 
let  them  be  encouraged,  fostered,  cultivated,  to  the  utmost : 
but  there  are  loftier,  more  inspiring,  more  edifying  branches 
of  study  than  these.  The  natural  and  physical  sciences  do 
their  best  work  in  the  way  of  mental  culture  when  they  are 
pursued  by  men  who  bring  to  the  study  of  nature  an  ideal 
element  that  flows  into  the  mind  from  other  fountains. 
Alexander  Yon  Humboldt,  though  not  belonging  to  the  first 
order  of  genius,  and  not  to  be  compared  with  men  like  Xep- 


464  RATIONAI.ISM. 

ler,  E'ewton,  and  Leibnitz,  is,  nevertheless,  an  example  of  the 
warming  and  widening  influence  of  literary  studies  upon  a 
devotee  of  science.  He  caught  something  from  the  genius 
of  his  brother,  who  was  probably  the  abler  man  of  the  two. 

But  rationalism  must  be  met  in  the  field  of  argument. 
To  this  end,  apart  from  the  intrinsic  interest  and  value  of 
these  studies,  the  physical  sciences  must  be  so  far  pursued 
by  the  student  of  the  gospel  as  to  qualify  him  to  judge  of 
the  theories  and  deductions  that  bear  closely  on  natural  and 
revealed  religion.  The  two  classes  of  scholars  need  to  know 
more  of  one  another,  and  of  the  wide  fields  of  research  in 
which,  respectively,  each  of  them  is  most  at  home.  Then 
the  naturalist  will  not  ignore  the  vast  range  of  facts  and  data 
that  do  not  lie  within  his  own  circle,  and  a  like  benefit  will 
accrue  to  the  theologian. 

The  theologian  must  not  set  his  face  against  new  truth  in 
his  own  branch.  Revelation  is  complete,  but  not  our  un- 
derstanding of  it.  Let  us  not  mistake  the  outpost  for  the 
citadel.  Let  us  not  imagine  that  the  Christian  faith  is  im- 
perilled by  every  proposed  modification  of  received  opinions. 
The  effect  of  historical,  philological,  and  scientific  study,  is 
to  bring  out  in  bolder  relief  the  human  element  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  It  is  more  and  more  felt  that  "  we  have  this 
treasure  in  earthen  vessels."  If  the  result  is,  that  tradi- 
tional formulas  are  somewhat  altered,  and  new  statements 
must  be  framed  in  their  place,  let  it  not  be  supposed  that  all 
or  that  anything  truly  valuable,  is  lost.  Be  it  ever  remem- 
bered that  "  the  letter  killeth ;  the  spirit  givetli  life." 
Much  may  be  conceded,  respecting  the  Bible,  that  was  once 
denied ;  and  yet  it  is  left  infallible  and  sufficient  as  a  rule 
of  faith.  There  is  a  power  in  the  Bible  to  quicken  the  soul ; 
to  meet  our  deepest  necessities ;  to  satisfy  us  when  all  other 
sources  of  wisdom  and  comfort  fail ;  "to  find  us,"  as  Cole- 
ridge has  aptlv  expressed  it :  and  this  power,  made  manifest 
in  all  ages,  and  among  all  conditions  of  men,  is  the  evidence 
of  his  divine  origin,  and  a  pledge,  that,  whatever  peculiari- 


RATIONALISM.  465 

ties  incidental  to  its  human  origin  likewise  may  come  to 
light,  it  will  never  lose  its  hold  upon  mankind.  A  good 
way  to  make  infidels  of  sharp-sighted  and  thoughtful  men  is 
to  identify  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  with  untenable  formulas 
respecting  the  Scriptures ;  to  make,  for  example,  Chris- 
tianity stand  or  fall  with  the  exactness  of  a  genealogical 
table.  Richard  Baxter  felt  this,  even  in  his  day.  [Never 
was  there  a  louder  call  for  the  utmost  candor  and  fairness  in 
dealing  with  the  difficulties  and  objections  of  inquiring 
minds,  whose  perplexities  find  little  relief  in  much  of  the 
current  and  traditional  teaching.  Where  there  is  no  settled 
hostility  to  the  Christian  faith,  an  irenical,  conciliatory  spirit 
on  the  side  of  its  defenders  is  eminently  called  for.  "  Prove 
all  things,  hold  fast  to  that  which  is  good,"  is  the  motto  for 
the  times.  It  was  a  Church  father — Tertullian,  I  believe — 
who  said  that  it  was  tradition  that  nailed  Christ  to  the  cross. 

[Nevertheless,  the  tenor  of  the  foregoing  remarks  will  pre- 
vent surprise  at  the  observation,  that  the  most  effective  an- 
tidote to  the  influence  of  rationalism  is  found  in  direct  ap- 
peals to  the  moral  and  spiritual  nature.  There  is  a  testi- 
mony within,  if  it  can  only  be  called  forth.  Sometimes  the 
inward  witness  is  awakened  by  the  experiences  of  life. 
Robert  Hall  said  that  he  buried  his  materialism  in  the  grave 
of  his  father.  But  another  providential  agent  for  effecting 
this  result  is  the  prophet's  voice.  Men  are  raised  up  in 
sceptical  times  when  the  higher  spiritual  nature  of  men 
seems  dormant,  and  when  the  understanding  has  taken  the 
throne  of  reason — men  whose  office  it  is  to  appeal  with  a 
direct  and  vivifying  power  to  the  intuitive  function  of  the 
spirit.  Among  the  heathen,  this  work  was  done  by  Socrates, 
in  opposition  to  the  Sophists.  He  taught  men  to  find  with- 
in themselves,  in  their  own  moral  intuitions,  a  certainty 
which  nothing  could  shake.  In  modern  times,  in  Germany, 
when  a  barren  rationalism  had  paralyzed  faith,  it  was 
Schleiermacher  who   recalled  men  to   religion.     The  high 


466  EATIONALISM. 

privilege  was  given  him  to  awaken  his  contemporaries  to  a 
sense  of  the  indestructible  character  and  sacred  authority  of 
religion.  His  errors,  whatever  they  may  have  been,  should 
never  prevent  us  from  recognizing  the  greatness  of  the  ser- 
vice which  he  rendered.  There  is  no  truly  earnest  preacher, 
who  speaks  from  a  living  experience,  who  is  not  carrying 
forward  an  effective  war  against  rationalism.  Robertson  of 
Brighton,  referring  to  the  cry  of  John  the  Baptist  to  the 
Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  "  Who  hath  warned  you  to  flee 
from  the  wrath  to  come  ? "  raises  the  question,  how  such 
words  could  be  addressed  with  any  hope  to  Sadducees,  who 
did  not  believe  in  a  wrath  to  come,  or  in  any  life  hereafter. 
But,  says  the  preacher,  when  they  heard  the  prophet  say, 
"  Who  hath  warned  you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  ? " 
they  knew  that  there  was  a  wrath  to  come.  There  are  re- 
sponsive chords  in  the  soul,  which  the  truth,  when  simply 
asserted  with  the  earnestness  of  a  living  conviction,  sets  in 
vibration.  Arguments  are  sometimes  necessary  and  useful ; 
but  they  may  be  superfluous,  and  even  harmful.  A  striking 
statement  that  brings  truth  in  direct  contact  with  the  spirit, 
a  declaration  that  comes  from  insight  and  experience,  may 
do  what  reasoning  fails  to  accomplish.  A  single  utterance, 
which  I  call,  for  the  want  of  an  equally  expressive  term,  pro- 
phetical, will  sometimes  dissipate  doubt  in  a  moment,  and 
develop  a  conviction  which  intellectual  inquiry  alone  might 
never  awaken. 

In  Germany,  it  was  an  orthodox  rationalism  that  paved 
the  way  for  the  heterodox.  Theologians  took  their  proposi- 
tions from  the  creed,  or  reasoned  them  out  by  processes  of 
logic,  but  forgot  to  set  them  in  a  living  relation  to  the  wants 
and  aspirations  of  the  soul;  or  they  dwelt  on  the  ethical 
side  of  the  Gospel,  to  the  lieglect  of  the  properly  religious 
elements,  in  which  the  originality  and  power  of  Christianity 
chiefly  reside.  Let  not  the  lesson  be  lost  upon  us,  who  are 
going  through  an  experience  not  unlike  that  through  which 
Germany  has,  in  a  sense,  already  passed. 


RATIONALISM.  467 

There  is  one  final  test  to  which  irreligious  as  well  as  reli- 
gious systems  are  subject;  and  that  is,  their  influence  on 
society.  The  Christian  religion  is  the  life-blood  of  the  social 
body.  That  gone,  decay  and  moral  death  inevitably  follow. 
Jesus  called  his  followers  "  the  salt  of  the  earth,"  "  the  light 
of  the  world."  They  were  the  light  of  the  world  because 
he  is  the  light  of  the  world,  and  their  light  is  kindled  from 
him.  Let  materialism  prevail,  and,  as  surely  as  effects  fol- 
low causes,  the  appetites  of  sense  and  earthly  passions  will 
gain  an  undisputed  ascendancy,  and  overturn  at  last  the 
social  fabric.  Let  a  less  gross  form  of  rationalism  supplant 
faith  in  the  verities  of  the  Gospel,  and  a  like  appalling  result 
will  ultimately,  though  it  may  be  with  slower  pace,  ensue. 
History  unites  with  reason  in  teaching,  that,  when  the  re- 
straints and  incentives  that  flow  from  religion  are  lost,  there 
is  no  power  adequate  to  control  the  selfish  propensities 
which  clamor  for  indulgence.  If  men  are  made  to  believe 
that  they  are  merely  animals,  they  will,  in  the  end,  behave 
like  the  brutes.  K  they  are  persuaded  that  they  are  desti- 
tute of  a  free  and  responsible  nature,  they  will  act  without 
a  conscience.  If  they  reject  the  truth  of  a  righteous  moral 
government,  they  will  sin  without  fear.  If  the  religion  of 
Christ  is  treated  as  a  human  invention,  the  regenerating 
power  that  lies  in  the  Gospel  is  wanting.  By  this  last  stern 
test,  every  irreligious  and  anti-Christian  system  which  is  not 
otherwise  overcome  must  be  tried.  Supernatural  Christi- 
anity has  been  tried  as  a  reformatory  agent  in  millions  of 
individuals,  and  in  society  at  large.  We  know  what  the 
Gospel  can  do  when  it  is  cordially  received.  We  are  not 
ignorant  of  what  may  be  expected  if  atheism,  or  pantheism, 
or  a  Christless  deism,  should  prevail.  The  fate  of  the  civi- 
lized heathen  nations  of  antiquity  is  instructive :  so  is  the 
history  of  modem  nations  which  have  given  themselves  up 
to  infidelity.  Apart  from  argument,  there  remains,  then, 
the  great  test  of  experience,  "  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know 
them." 


4:QS  THE   UNEEAS0NABLENES8   OF   ATHEISM. 


THE  UNREASONABLENESS  OF  ATHEISM.* 

The  word  "  fool "  commonly  means,  in  the  Bible,  not  a 
person  actually  devoid  of  reason,  but  one  who,  having  rea- 
son, fails,  through  some  wrong  quality  of  character,  to  use 
it  aright,  but  proceeds  in  his  thinking  or  conduct  in  a  way 
contrary  to  the  dictates  of  a  soimd  intelligence.  There  are 
two  sorts  of  fools ;  first,  natural  fools,  and  secondly,  fools 
from  choice — or  those  who,  from  haste  or  conceit,  or  some 
evil  inclination,  occult  it  may  be,  are  grossly  misled  in  their 
opinions,  or  in  their  practical  action.  When,  for  example, 
we  read  in  the  Proverbs  that  "  Judgments  are  prepared  for 
sinners,  and  stripes  for  the  back  of  fools  ; "  and,  in  another 
place,  "  Though  thou  shouldst  bray  a  fool  in  a  mortar  among 
wheat  with  a  pestle,  yet  will  not  his  foolishness  depart  from 
him,"  the  allusion  is  plainly  not  to  men  whose  native  talents 
are  below  the  average,  and  whose  attainments  of  knowledge 
are  small.  Everything  like  contempt  for  inferiors  of  this 
class  is  utterly  at  variance  with  the  spirit  of  Christianity. 
The  pride  of  knowledge,  like  eveiy  other  kind  of  pride,  is 
rebuked  in  the  Bible.  But  the  allusion  is  to  one  who,  while 
possessed  of  the  attributes  of  a  rational  being,  chooses, 
nevertheless,  to  adopt  principles,  or  pursue  lines  of  conduct, 
that  are  perfectly  unreasonable.  Even  then,  to  call  another 
"  fool "  in  any  bitter  temper,  to  despise  or  hate  him  for  any 
cause,  is  forbidden  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Yet  there 
is  nothing  to  hinder  us  from  designating  folly,  not  passion- 
ately, but  in  a  calm  and  sober  way,  by  its  true  name.     Not 

*  A  Discourse  in  the  chapel  of  Yale  Colleg-e  (October  22,  1876),  on  the 
text :  "  The  fool  hath  said  in  his  heart,  '  There  is  no  God.' "  Ps.  xiv.  1. 


THE    UNREASONABLENESS   OF   ATHEISM.  469 

to  tarry  longer  upon  the  explanation  of  words,  I  wish  to 
speak  of  the  folly  of  atheism  under  two  heads;  first,  the 
futility  of  the  reasons  that  lead  to  it,  and  secondly,  the 
strength  of  the  evidence  for  the  being  of  God  which  it  ig- 
nores. 

Among  the  sources  of  atheism,  one  is  the  fact  that  God 
is  imperceptible  by  the  senses.  The  remark  has  been  at- 
tributed to  La  Place  that,  searching  the  heavens,  he  could 
not  find  God  with  his  telescope.  It  is  doubtful  whether  he 
ever  said  it.  But  whether  he  did  or  not,  it  indicates  the 
spirit  that  often  tacitly  underlies  theoretical  and  practical 
atheism.  God,  when  sought  for  as  a  visible  object,  cannot 
be  found  by  traversing  the  sea,  or  exploring  the  sky,  even 
if  one  pursued  his  journey  to  the  farthest  star.  But  what 
folly  to  conclude  that  God  does  not  exist,  because  he  is  not 
visible !  Men — unless  you  call  the  body  the  man — are  not 
visible.  The  thinking  principle,  neither  in  yourself  nor  in 
others,  have  you  ever  seen.  You  may  say  that  you  are  con- 
scious of  it  in  yourself.  But  how  do  you  know  that  it  ex- 
ists in  another — in  the  friend,  for  example,  who  sits  at  your 
side?  You  cannot  see  it:  all  that  you  behold  is  certain 
manifestations,  or  phenomena — certain  visible  and  tangible 
signs — which  reveal  its  presence.  You  may  be  in  daily,  in- 
timate converse  with  another,  but  his  soul  ever  remains  in- 
visible: for 

"  We  are  spirits  clad  in  veils : 
Man  by  man  was  never  seen  : 
All  our  deep  communing  faOs 

To  remove  the  shadowy  screen."  * 

Why  then  disbelieve  in  God  because  you  cannot  see  him  ? 
If  through  the  look,  the  tone,  the  gesture  of  a  man  at  your 
side  you  can  infer,  or  behold  with  the  eye  of  faith,  the  in- 
visible mind  that  resides  within,  the  seat  of  thought  and  af- 
fection, why   not  recognize   the   Supreme   Intelligence,  of 

*  From  a  poem  of  C.  P.  Cranch. 


470  THE    UNREASONABLENESS   OF   ATHEISM. 

whom  it  is  true,  as  an  apostle  has  said,  that  "  The  invisible 
things  of  him  from  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly 
seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made,  even 
his  eternal  power  and  Godhead  ? "  Even  within  the  sphere 
of  material  nature,  invisible  forces,  some  of  them  of  vast 
energy,  are  admitted  to  exist.  They  tell  us  that  matter  is 
composed  of  atoms :  who  has  seen  them  ?  Who  has  seen 
the  force  of  gravitation,*  and  can  paint  a  likeness  of  it  ? 
Who  has  beheld  the  subtle  ether  which,  it  is  believed,  per- 
vades all  space  ?  He  who  believes  in  nothmg  but  what  he, 
or  somebody  else  has  seen,  will  have  a  short  creed.  Even 
if  he  admit  the  reality  of  matter  and  molecular  motion,  he 
will  have  to  deny  the  existence  of  any  such  thing  as  a  power 
of  thought  or  volition — a  principle  of  intelligence — behind 
the  actions  and  expressions  of  his  fellow-men.  He  must 
deny  that  he  is  endued  with  such  a  power  himself.  There 
is  no  need  to  go  farther.  When  he  has  emptied  the  world 
of  everything  but  brute  matter,  which  can  be  weighed  and 
clutched,  or  brought  under  the  laws  of  molecular  action,  he 
may,  perhaps,  logically  reject  God. 

A  second  source  of  atheism,  is  the  notion  that  as  far  as 
second  causes  are  brought  to  light,  the  first  cause  is  excluded, 
or  the  notion  that  second  causes  are  disconnected  from  God. 
In  the  Bible,  we  read,  in  a  sentence  that  has  hardly  a  paral- 
lel for  beauty :  "By  the  Word  of  the  Lord  were  the 
heavens  made,  and  all  the  host  of  them  by  the  breath  of 
his  mouth."  ISTow  suppose  the  nebular  hypothesis,  as 
broached  by  Herschel  and  La  Place,  to  be  true.  Whether 
it  be  true  or  not,  I  cannot  say :  the  astronomers  have  not 
yet  •  made  up  their  minds  about  it.  But  suppose  it  to  be 
true.  Then  a  homogeneous,  nebulous  matter  diffused  abroad 
in  space,  by  a  long  process  of  attractions  and  repulsions, 
combinations  and  motions,  solidified  into  the  bodies  and  sys- 
tems which  now  form  the  sidereal  world.  Does  this  rule 
out  the  sublime  declaration  of  Scripture — "  By  the  Word  of 
the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made,  and  all  the  host  of  them 


THE  UNBEASONABLKNESS  OF  ATHEISM.         471 

by  the  breath  of  his  mouth  ? "  Before  attending  to  this 
question,  let  us  turn  for  a  moment  to  another  illustration. 
A  person,  after  a  lingering  illness,  dies.  The  minister  and 
the  physician  happen  to  be  together.  The  minister  says : 
"  It  has  pleased  Grod  to  terminate  the  life  of  our  brother." 
"  Ko,"  says  the  doctor,  "  he  died  of  a  fever."  "  You  are 
wrong,"  replies  the  minister,  "  it  is  God — it  is  he  that  killeth 
and  that  maketh  alive."  "  You  are  wrong,"  rejoins  the 
other,  "  I  have  watched  the  progress  of  the  fever  from  the 
beginning  :  such  a  fever  seizing  upon  such  a  constitution  can 
have  no  other  issue."  The  one  party  falls  back  on  religious 
conviction,  and  the  testimony  of  the  Bible ;  the  other  ap- 
peals to  the  obvious  connection  of  antecedent  and  conse- 
quent. I>[ow  shall  this  unseemly  wrangle  between  the  min- 
ister and  the  doctor  be  dignified  by  the  high-sounding  name 
of  "  a  conflict  between  religion  and  science  ?  "  In  such  a 
contest,  both  are  right  in  what  they  affirm,  and  wrong  in 
what  they  deny.  Let  all  the  links  of  secondary  causation 
be  exposed  as  completely  as  possible,  each  of  them  bound  to 
the  one  before  and  after  it,  it  is  not  less  true  that,  when  life 
ends,  it  is  God  who  brings  it  to  an  end.  The  instrument 
used  does  not  exclude,  it  includes  his  agency.  If  a  bird  is 
shot  by  a  rifle,  it  is  a  man  still  that  kills  the  bird.  Many 
appear  to  think  that  God  is  to  be  found,  if  found  at  all,  only 
at  the  origin  of  things — the  origin  of  matter,  the  origin  of  life, 
the  origin  of  different  species — at  crises,  so  to  speak.  But "  he 
maketh  his  sun  to  rise  " — daily  maketh  his  sun  to  rise — "  on 
the  evil  and  on  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and 
on  the  unjust."  He  is  present  with  his  agency  in  the  course 
of  nature  not  less  really  and  efficiently  than  at  the  begin- 
nings of  nature.  He  is  the  primal  fountain  from  which  all 
force  emanates.  "  Not  a  sparrow  falls  to  the  ground  without 
your  Father."  We  revert  now  to  the  question  of  the  origin 
of  the  stellar  universe.  God  is  not  less  its  author  even  if 
the  material  of  which  it  is  composed  were  carried  through  a 
succession  of  changes,  reaching  through  a  long  series  of  ages. 


472  THE   UNREASONABLENESS   OF   ATHEISM. 

There  is,  to  be  sure,  tlie  origination  of  the  material  to  be 
accounted  for,  with  all  its  latent  properties  and  tendencies. 
But  God  is  presupposed  not  only  at  this  initial  stage,  but  at 
every  subsequent  movement,  until  the  glorious  work  was 
consummated.  "  By  the  Word  of  the  Lord  " — by  his  will 
and  in  pursuance  of  his  plan — "  were  the  heavens  made." 

Science  has  for  its  business  the  investigation  of  second 
causes.  Let  it  have  a  fair  field.  I  sympathize  with  the  re- 
sentment which  the  students  of  nature  feel  when  the  at- 
tempt is  made  to  furnish  them  with  conclusions  beforehand. 
Their  peculiar  province  is  to  unfold  all  the  links  of  second- 
ary causation — every  nexios  between  antecedent  and  conse- 
quent—which they  can  ferret  out.  But  the  origin  of  things 
— I  mean,  the  primary  origin — and  the  end,  or  design,  it 
belongs  to  philosophy,  in  the  light  of  revelation,  to  define. 
The  man  of  science  may,  also,  be  a  philosopher  ;  and  he  may 
not  be.*  The  particular  fallacy,  however,  which  I  would 
here  point  out  is  the  false  and  unauthorized  assumption  that 
where  secondary  causation  begins,  divine  agency  ceases,  and 
that  as  far  as  secondary  causation  extends,  divine  agency  is 
excluded.  How  much  nobler  is  the  conception  of  the  Bible, 
in  the  E^ew  Testament  as  well  as  in  the  Old  !  It  is  God  by 
whom  the  lilies  of  the  field  are  clothed  with  beauty.  The 
fowls  of  the  air — it  is  your  Heavenly  Father  that  feedeth 
them  ! 

Closely  allied  to  the  fallacy  just  named  is  the  assumption 
that  mechanical  causes  are  incompatible  with  design.    Much 


*  It  is  a  remark  of  Archbishop  Whately,  to  be  found  somewhere  in  his 
biography,  and  a  remark  characteristic  of  his  sagacity,  that  science  has 
nothing  to  do  with  religion.  If  I  ask  a  man  of  science  for  the  origin  of  an 
eclipse,  it  is  not  for  him,  that  is,  not  for  him  in  his  character  as  a  man  of 
science,  to  answer  that  God  caused  it.  This  I  knew  before.  His  func- 
tion is  to  explain  the  antecedents  which  constitute  the  ground  on  which 
the  event  can  be  predicted.  What  is  true  of  an  eclipse  is  true  of  every- 
thing else  in  nature.  With  respect  to  the  origin  of  man,  it  is  perfectly 
legitimate,  it  is,  in  fact,  the  proper  function  of  the  scientific  man,  to  find 
out  the  mediating  process — if  there  was  one — in  his  creation. 


THE   UNREASONABLENESS    OF    ATHEISM.  473 

of  the  atheistic  reasoning  current  at  the  present  day  proceeds 
on  this  wholly  gratuitous  assumption,  which  the  analogies  of 
human  experience  contradict.  But  to  this  fallacy  I  shall 
soon  advert  again. 

A  third  particular  in  which  atheism  demonstrates  its  folly 
is  in  the  assumption  that  the  laws  of  nature — or  the  unifor- 
mity of  nature's  laws — excludes  God.  Must  there  be  then  a 
break — discord  where  there  is  order — to  prove  that  God 
reigns  ?  Is  there  no  God,  because  there  is  a  reign  of  law  ? 
Lnagine  that  in  the  room  of  the  universal  sway  of  law,  there 
were  a  jumble  of  events,  no  fixed  relation  of  antecedent  and 
consequent ;  in  a  word,  chaos.  Would  there  be  more  or  less 
evidence  of  a  God  than  there  is  now  ?  It  is  because  nature  is 
an  orderly  system,  that  the  universe  is  intelligible,  and  science 
possible.  This  very  aspect  of  nature  shows  that  the  head  of 
the  universe  is  an  intelligent  being.  Miracles  would  not  be 
credible,  if  they  were,  as  some  suppose  them  to  be,  anti-natural. 
Though  not  the  mere  effect  of  nature,  they  harmonize  with 
it,  as  parts  of  a  more  comprehensive  system.  ^  What  a 
strange  idea  that  for  the  heavens  to  declare  the  glory  of 
God,  it  is  necessary  that  the  planets  should  leap  out  of  their 
orbits,  instead  of  keeping  their  appointed  path  with  unfal- 
tering regularity !  We  count  it  the  perfection  of  intelligent 
control,  when  the  railway  train  reaches  its  destination,  day 
after  day,  at  the  same  appointed  moment.  "  O,  no  !  "  cries 
the  Atheist :  "  let  the  train,  now  and  then,  run  oif  the  track 
into  yonder  meadow,  and  I  will  believe  that  it  does  not  go 
of  itself,  and  that  an  engineer  guides  it."  A  government  of 
law  is  opposed  to  that  of  wild  chance  or  mutable  caprice. 


*  Miracles  surpass  the  capacities  of  nature.  But,  as  Augustine  long 
ago  affirmed,  the  ordinary  operations  of  nature  are  just  as  truly  from 
God,  as  are  miraculous  phenomena;  and  those  operations  would  be  just 
as  marvellous,  were  we  not  familiar  with  them,  as  any  miracle  can  be. 
What  marvel  greater  than  every  new-bom  child  ?  But  the  point  made 
above  is  that  miracles  have  their  law — their  rationale — as  parts  of  the 
divine  plan. 


474  THE   UNREASONABLENESS   OF  ATHEISM. 

What  should  we  expect  of  perfect  wisdom,  and  of  perfect 
goodness  too,  but  a  system  of  nature,  a  fixed  order,  on  which 
men  can  build  their  plans  ?  Of  all  the  grounds  for  atheism, 
the  rationality  of  the  universe  is  the  most  singular. 

Another  pretext  for  atheism  is  the  alleged  contrariety  of 
the  teaching  of  the  Bible  to  the  discoveries  of  natural  and 
physical  science.  An  odd  conclusion  surely,  even  if  such  a 
contradiction  were  found.  For  the  Bible  does  not  first  make 
known  the  existence  of  God.  If  the  Bible  were  shown  to  be 
full  of  errors,  it  would  not  disprove  the  being  of  God.  His 
being  is  assumed  in  the  Bible.  It  is  declared  to  be  manifest 
in  the  universe  around  us,  and  within  us,  so  that  heathenism 
is  without  excuse.  But  there  is  no  discrepancy  between  the 
ascertained  truth  of  science,  and  the  essential  teaching  of 
the  Bible  respecting  God  and  his  relations  to  the  world. 
The  Bible  is  our  guide  in  morals  and  religion.  It  does  not 
anticipate  the  discoveries  of  science,  or  of  art.  Paul  was  a 
tent-maker.  The  inspiration  that  so  illuminated  his  spiritual 
perception  as  to  render  him  an  authoritative  teacher  of  the 
Gospel,  did  not,  as  far  as  we  know,  enable  him  to  make  tents 
any  better  than  other  workmen  of  the  same  craft.  There 
has  been,  doubtless,  since  his  time,  a  progress  in  this  art  as 
in  almost  every  other.  These  two  things  are  true  of  the 
Bible :  first,  it  js  written  from  the  religious  point  of  view. 
That  is,  God  is  brought  directly  before  us,  in  describing  the 
works  of  Providence,  as  well  as  the  phenomena  of  nature — 
secondary  and  intermediate  causes  being,  to  a  large  extent, 
dropped  out  of  sight.  The  veil  that  hides  him,  so  to  speak, 
from  the  dull  eyes  of  men,  is  torn  away,  and  his  agency  is 
brought  into  the  foreground.  Secondly,  the  Bible  vsrriters 
take  the  science  of  their  time,  or  the  ordinary  conceptions 
of  men  respecting  the  material  world,  and  proceed  upon  that 
basis,  eliminating,  however,  everything  at  variance  with  true 
religion.  They  stand  substantially  on  the  same  plane  of  phys- 
ical knowledge  as  their  contemporaries ;  and  from  that  plane 
they  exhibit  the  attributes  of  God  as  the  creator  and  ruler 


THE  UNREASONABLENESS  OF  ATHEISM.         475 

of  nature.  The  astronomy  of  the  Bible  is  that  of  the  an- 
cients. Its  authors  had  no  idea  of  the  Copernican  system. 
They  simply  discard  all  heathen  mythological  conceptions, 
leaving  no  room  for  Baal-worship.  Their  concern  was  to 
reveal  God  as  the  almighty  maker  and  sustainer  of  the  visi- 
ble universe ;  they  did  not,  and  they  could  not,  explain  the 
sidereal  system.  *  As  for  geology,  there  was  none.  The 
Pentateuch  records  the  giving  of  the  law  upon  Sinai,  but 
does  not  tell  us  that  the  rock  is  of  granite.  The  journey  of 
the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness  was  not  a  geological  excur- 
sion. We  know  not  when,  or  by  whom,  the  story  of  the 
creation  was  first  recorded  in  the  form  in  which  we  have  it. 
But  that  sublime  passage  of  Holy  Writ  has  its  parallels  in 
the  ancient  traditions  of  other  Semitic  peoples.  In  Genesis, 
we  find  it  cleansed  of  polytheistic  error,  and  made  the  vehi- 
cle of  conveying  the  loftiest  moral  and  religious  truth.  Com- 
pare it  with  the  cosmogony  of  Assyria  or  Babylon,  and  you 
will  see  wherein  the  proof  of  its  inspiration  lies.  There  may 
be  striking  correspondences  with  modern  knowledge,  as  in 
the  creation  of  light  before  the  heavenly  bodies,  f  But  I 
should  not  expect  to  find  in  this  old  panorama  of  the  crea- 
tion, as  it  passed  before  the  purified  imagination  of  the 
primitive  Hebrews,  any  rigid  conformity  in  detail  with  that 
vast  book  which  modern  science  has  unrolled.  It  passed  for 
literal  history  in  by-gone  ages  ;  but  it  must  be  read  now  as 
a  poem — a  history  in  the  forms  of  the  imagination,  as  it 
really  was  in  its  primitive  inception ;  yet  a  poem  stamped 
with  the  evidences  of  divine  inspiration,  containing  the  es- 
sential principles  of  the  Old  Testament  religion,  and  em- 

*  It  was  a  wise  as  well  as  witty  remark  of  a  celebrated  ecclesiastic,  sup- 
posed to  be  the  (Cardinal  Baronius,  to  whom  Galileo  refers,  that  the  Bible 
was  given  to  teach  us  how  to  go  to  heaven,  not  how  the  heavens  go. 

f  Yet  it  seems  to  have  been  a  prevalent  conception  that  light  was  inde- 
pendent of  the  heavenly  luminaries.  It  has  a  dwelling-place  (Job  xxxviii. 
19).  Even  in  the  Greek  conception,  "  the  rosy-fingered  dawn"  preceded 
the  chariot  of  Apollo. 


476  TIIE   UNREASONABLENESS   OF   ATHEISM. 

bodying  more  moral  and  religious  truth  than  all  other  books 
not  written  in  dependence  on  the  Bible.  The  first  utterance 
— "  In  the  beginning,  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth" 
— is  a  truth  to  which  heathen  philosophy,  on  its  highest 
stage,  never  absolutely  attained.  *  The  Bible  fares  hardly 
in  these  days,  between  an  infidel  theology,  on  the  one  hand, 
which  is  blind  to  the  supernatural  wisdom  that  belongs  to  it, 
and  a  rabbinical  theology  on  the  other,  that  makes  no  room 
in  its  formulas  for  the  human  element  which  pervades  the 
book  from  beginning  to  end.  The  Bible  is  crucified,  as  it 
were,  between  these  two  theologies.     But  the  Bible,  con- 

*  In  the  first  three  chapters  of  Genesis,  we  find  asserted  the  truths  that 
the  universe  owes  its  being  to  the  creative  agency  of  one  personal  God — 
as  against  dualism,  pantheism,  and  polytheism ;  that  man  is  like  God  in 
his  spiritual  faculties  ;  that  sin  is  not  a  physical  or  metaphysical  necessity, 
but  has  its  origin  and  seat  in  the  will  of  the  creature  ;  that  guilt  brings 
shame  and  separation  from  communion  with  God  ;  that  immorality  is  the 
natural  fruit  of  impiety.  These  are  truths  of  vast  moment ;  peculiar,  in 
their  pure  form,  to  the  religion  of  the  Bible. 

Ordinarily  we  find  it  to  be  the  method  of  Providence  that  sacred  history, 
like  other  history,  should  be  recorded  by  *'  eye-witnesses  or  well-informed 
contemporaries. "  Witness  the  almost  complete  silence  of  the  Evangelists 
upon  the  first  thirty  years  of  the  Saviour's  life.  "  Wherefore,"  said  Peter 
(Acts  i.  21,  22),  "of  these  men  which  have  companied  with  us  all  the 
time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out  among  us,  beginning  from  the 
baptism  of  John,  unto  that  same  day  that  he  was  taken  up  from  us,  must 
one  be  ordained  to  be  a  witness  with  us  of  his  resurrection."  The  early 
part  of  Genesis,  the  Prolegomena  to  the  Mosaic  legislation  and  to  the  re- 
cord of  the  founding  of  the  Hebrew  Commonwealth,  precedes  contempo- 
rary authorship,  except  so  far  as  earlier  documents  may  be  interwoven. 
It  is  to  be  expected  that  difficulties,  and  questions  for  criticism,  would 
arise  in  extraordinary  measure  respecting  this  section  of  the  Bible.  Es- 
pecially is  this  true  of  the  first  ten  chapters,  which  carry  us  far  back  into 
the  primeval  era,  anterior  to  the  beginnings  of  the  Jewish  people.  But 
whatever  may  be  here  set  down  to  "the  human  element,"  the  homo- 
geneity of  these  narratives,  as  to  their  moral  and  religious  spirit  and  con- 
tent, with  the  rest  of  the  Scriptures,  and  thus  their  elevation  above  all 
heathen  literature,  must  not  be  overlooked.  The  divine  element  is  not 
less  conspicuous  and  impressive  on  the  mind  of  a  thoughtful  student  of 
the  history  of  religion,  than  in  those  portions  of  the  Bible  which  emanate 
directly  from  persons  who  participated  in  the  events  which  they  record. 


THE   UNREASONABLENESS    OF   ATHEISM.  477 

taming  as  it  does  the  word  of  God,  has  a  perennial  life  in 
it.  It  has  shown  its  power  to  outlive  the  changing  systems 
of  its  human  interpreters.  There  is  no  inconsistency,  then, 
between  the  Bible,  taken  as  the  teacher  of  moral  and  relig- 
ious truth,  and  the  results  of  scientific  study.  There  is  no 
room  for  contradiction,  since  they  move  on  different  planes. 
Hence  atheism  founded  on  this  pretext  is  a  folly. 

Another  ground  of  atheism  is  the  supposed  imperfection 
in  the  Creator's  work,  or  government.  This,uf  shown  to 
exist,  would  not  disprove  the  being  of  God,  though  it  might 
affect  our  estimate  of  his  attributes.  If  a  house  is  leaky,  we 
do  not  infer  that  it  was  never  built,  but  only  that  the  work- 
men lacked  skill,  or  were  guilty  of  negligence.  It  was 
thought,  a  century  ago,  to  be  a  ridiculous  boast  when 
Thomas  Paine  said  of  the  Bible  that  he  could  write  a  bet- 
ter book  himself.  But  we  have  had  to  listen,  in  our  time, 
to  criticisms  equally  daring  upon  the  system  of  nature, 
which  has  been  pronounced  in  various  particulars  defective. 
Complaint  is,  also,  made  that,  in  the  course  of  things,  right- 
eousness and  prosperity  are  not  always  united  ;  and,  hence, 
that  a  perfect  moral  Ruler,  one  possessed  of  infinite  good- 
ness and  infinite  power,  cannot  be  supposed.  This  last  is 
an  old  objection.  "We  might  stop  to  ask  whence  the  sceptic 
derives  the  faculties  by  which  he  undertakes  to  criticise  the 
natural  and  moral  system,  and  where  he  obtained  the  stand- 
ard on  which  his  judgments  are  based  ?  If  the  universe  is 
so  at  fault,  what  assurance  has  he  that  his  own  judging 
faculty,  the  author  of  this  unfavorable  verdict,  is  any  better 
constructed  'i  But,  passing  by  this  consideration,  the  whole 
objection,  as  Bishop  Butler  has  shown  with  irresistible  force, 
is  an  argument  from  ignorance.  It  is  a  rash  judgment  upon 
a  system  not  yet  completed.  I  will  suppose  a  man  to  enter 
the  Cologne  Cathedral,  one  of  the  grandest  monuments  of 
the  genius  and  piety  of  the  middle  ages.  He  paces  up  and 
down  its  long  aisles ;  he  follows  with  his  eye  the  columns, 
ascending  upward,   and   spreading  their    branches   like  a 


478        THE  UNREASONABLENESS  OF  ATHEISM. 

mighty  forest,  to  uphold  the  far-off  canopy  of  stone ;  he 
pauses  at 

"  The  storied  windows,  richly  dight, 
Casting  a  dim,  religious  light ; " 

but,  just  as  the  grandeur  and  symmetry  of  the  vast  edifice 
touch  his  soul  with  a  sensation  of  awe,  his  eye  falls  on  por- 
tions of  the  wall  left  in  the  rough,  on  towers  abruptly  broken 
off,  and  cries  out,  "  the  artist  was,  after  all,  a  bungler ! " 
What  would  you  say  to  such  a  man  ?  You  would  say,  "  O 
profane  babbler,  the  building  is  not  yet  done ! "  Is  there 
not  enough  to  prove  the  skill  of  the  architect  ?  You  can 
see  to  what  result  the  construction  tends.  Wait  till  the  plan 
is  complete,  before  you  utter  your  disparagement.  So  it  is 
with  the  moral  system,  and  the  moral  administration  of  the 
world,  l^ow  we  know  in  part.  We  see  that  the  direction 
is  right ;  we  can  securely  wait  for  the  consmnmation. 

Turn  now,  for  a  moment,  to  the  positive  evidence  of  God 
which  atheism  fails  to  acknowledge  in  its  real  import. 

There  is,  first,  the  revelation  of  God  in  the  soul.  There 
is  within  us  a  sense  of  dependence,  and  a  consciousness  of  a 
law  imposed  upon  us  by  the  Power  on  whom  we  depend — a 
law  moral  in  its  nature,  and  thus  revealing  that  power  as 
having  a  preference  for  right — in  other  words,  as  personal 
and  holy.  An  almost  audible  voice  of  God  in  the  soul  dis- 
closes to  us  his  being,  and  intimate  relation  to  ourselves.* 
Connected  with  this  inward  experience  of  dependence  and 
of  duty,  there  is  in  the  depth  of  the  spirit  a  yearning  for 

*  Suppose  the  unverified  notion  of  the  gradual  genesis  of  the  moral 
faculty — that  it  is  the  result  of  the  accretion  of  hereditary  impressions — to 
be  held ;  still  the  moral  faculty  now  exists.  Moreover,  it  stands  as  well, 
as  to  its  origin,  as  the  intellectual  nature;  and  legitimate  deductions 
from  the  phenomena  of  our  moral  consciousness  are  equally  valid  with 
the  science  which  depends  for  all  of  its  conclusions  on  the  validity  of  our 
intellectual  faculty.  It  is  difficult  for  the  most  erratic  speculation  to 
strike  at  religion  without,  at  the  same  time,  not  only  striking  at  morality, 
but  annihilatmg  itself  ;  for  the  science  that  casts  discredit  on  the  organ 
of  knowledge  commits  suicide  in  the  very  act. 


THE   UNREASONABLENESS    OF   ATHEISM.  479 

communion  with  liim  in  wliom  we  live,  and  move,  and  have 
our  being.  Tliese  inward  testimonies  of  God  can  never  be 
absohitelj  silenced.  A  recent  writer  has  defined  God  as  the 
power,  not  ourselves,  that  makes  for  righteousness.  There 
is  a  power,  then,  that  gives  law  to  the  will  without  coercing 
it,  cheers  with  the  hope  of  reward,  and  menaces  with  the 
dread  of  punishment,  and  actually  secures  the  reward  to  the 
righteous  ;  and  yet  that  power  has  no  love  of  righteousness, 
and  no  hatred  to  iniquity  !  It  is  unnatural,  it  is  a  perver- 
sion of  reason  to  believe  this.  Behind  the  mandate  of  con- 
science is  the  preference  and  will  of  God.  Coleridge  is 
right  in  saying  that  it  is  our  duty  to  believe  in  God ;  for 
this  belief  is  indispensable  to  the  life  of  conscience.  The 
only  correlate  for  the  unquenchable  yearning  of  the  human 
spirit  for  a  higher  communion,  is  the  living  God,  who, 
though  not  seen  by  us,  himself  "  seeth  in  secret."  Faith  in 
God  springs  up  in  the  soul  spontaneously,  where  the  soul  is 
not  darkened  and  perverted.  It  is  strictly  natural.  Hence 
religion,  in  some  form,  is  universal,  or  as  nearly  so  as  are 
the  exercise  of  a  moral  sense,  and  the  rest  of  the  higher 
powers  of  man.  Religion,  the  belief  in  God,  is  like  the 
domestic  affections.  They  may  be  weakened,  they  may  be 
corrupted,  they  may  be  deadened,  and,  to  all  appearance 
well-nigh  extirpated.  Nevertheless,  they  remain,  an  inde- 
structible part  of  human  nature.  A  man  may  argue  that 
these  affections — ^filial,  parental,  conjugal  love — are  irrational, 
the  product  of  fancy,  or  merely  an  heir-loom  from  the  past. 
Pseudo-philosophers  have  done  this.  He  may  profess  to 
emancipate  himself  from  these  superstitious  feelings.  But  if 
he  succeed,  he  will  only  starve  his  heart ;  and,  in  the  end, 
mature  will  prove  too  strong  for  him.*  Religion  is  not  a 
\  — _ ____ 

*  If  the  attempt  were  made  to  bring  up  a  child  without  the  exercise  on 
his  part  of  domestic  affection,  all  the  propensities  and  feelings  that  relate 
to  the  family  being,  as  far  as  practicable,  stifled,  the  experiment  would  be 
analogous  to  that  which  John  Stuart  Mill  suffered,  as  regards  religion,  at 
the  hands  of  his  father. 


480         THE  UNREASONABLENESS  OF  ATHEISM. 

doctrine  merely  ;  it  is  a  life,  an  integral  part  of  the  life  of 
the  soul ;  and  without  religion,  man  is  a  poor  deformed 
creature,  more  dead  than  alive.  Every  organ,  deprived  of 
its  correlated  object,  feels  after  it.  There  is  an  effort,  a 
nisus — from  which  there  is  no  rest.  So  it  is  in  a  man  who 
undertakes  to  live  without  God — at  least  until  higher  sensi- 
bility is  paralyzed.  In  these  ways  does  God  give  a  witness 
of  himself  within  us,  to  disregard  which  is  not  less  irrational 
than  wicked. 

Secondly,  atheism  disregards  the  revelation  of  God  in  the 
structure  of  the  world,  the  marks  of  design  that  everywhere 
present  themselves  to  the  unbiassed  observer.  "  lie  that 
planted  the  ear,  shall  he  not  hear?  He  that  formed  the 
eye,  shall  he  not  see  ?  "  The  mind  refuses  to  believe  that 
the  author — the  cause — of  the  eye  and  ear,  is  itself  void 
of  perception.  The  adaptations  of  nature  exhibit  on  every 
hand  a  contriving  mind.  The  thought  of  God  springs  up 
within  us  involuntarily,  whenever  we  consider  the  human 
frame,  or  look  at  any  other  of  the  countless  examples  of  de- 
sign of  which  the  world  is  full.  There  is  proof  of  arrange- 
ment everywhere.  The  heart  rises  in  thanks  and  worship 
to  "  Him  who  alone  doeth  great  wonders ; "  "  to  him  that 
by  wisdom  made  the  heavens ; "  "  that  stretched  out  the 
earth  above  the  waters  ; "  "  to  him  that  made  great  lights, 
the  sun  to  rule  by  day,  the  moon  and  stars  to  rule  by  night." 
This  evidence  of  God  has  impressed  the  greatest  minds  of 
the  race — men  like  Socrates  and  Cicero — and  the  humblest 
minds  alike.  One  would  think  that  a  man,  knowing  by  con- 
sciousness and  observation  what  the  characteristic  marks  and 
fruits  of  intelligence  are,  must  have  put  out  his  eyes  if  he 
fails  to  discern  a  plan  in  the  marvellous  order  of  nature. 
How  can  an  invisible,  spiritual  being  reveal  himself  to  other 
minds,  if  works  appropriate  to  intelligence  do  not  inspire  a 
conviction  of  his  presence  and  agency  'i  * 

*  The  argument  from  final  causes  in  nature  is  not  weakened  by  our  in- 
ability to  discern,  in  many  cases,  what  they  are,  or  by  mistakes  made  in 


THE   UNREASONABLENESS   OF   ATHEISM.  481 

'Not  is  the  force  of  this  evidence  weakened  by  the  doc- 
trine of  evolution,  unless  it  is  pushed  into  materialism,  in 
which  case  it  can  be  overthrown  by  irrefutable  arguments. 
Suppose  it  were  true  that  all  animals — nay,  all  living 
things — could  be  traced. back  to  a  single  germ,  out  of  which 
they  are  developed  in  pursuance  of  certain  laws  or  tenden- 
cies. Then  they  were  all  contained  in  that  germ.  Nothing 
can  be  ^-volved  that  was  not  before  m-volved.  What  a  mar- 
vel that  gelatin — or  protoplasm — or  whatever  it  be  called — 
in  which  are  shut  up  all  the  living  things  that  exist  ?  Who 
laid  it  in  the  properties — the  tendency  to  variation,  the  ten- 
dency to  permanence,  and  the  rest — by  the  operation  of  which 
this  endless  variety,  and  beauty  and  order  emerge  ?  You  see 
that  God  is  required  as  much  as  ever.  This  new  doctrine, 
whether  it  be  an  established  truth,  or  an  unverified  specula- 
tion, strikes  at  religion  only  when  it  assumes  to  deny  the  ex- 
istence of  mind  in  the  proper  sense,  and  holds  that  thought 


presumptuous  endeavors  to  point  them  out.  The  objection  of  Hume  to 
affirming  an  analogy  between  works  of  nature  and  works  of  art,  is  futile, 
since  in  respect  to  design — the  feature  in  both  on  which  the  argument 
turns— the  analogy  holds.  The  eye  is  an  instrument  employed  by  a  ra- 
tional being  for  a  purpose  ;  and  when  we  see  how  it  is  fitted  to  this  use, 
we  cannot  resist  the  persuasion  that  it  was  intended  for  it.  The  idea  of 
the  organ  we  discern,  as  Whewell  well  puts  it :  we  have  in  our  minds  the 
idea  of  a  final  cause,  and  when  we  behold  the  eye,  we  find  our  idea  ex- 
emplified. This  idea,  then,  governed  the  construction  of  the  eye,  be  its 
mechanical  causes,  the  operative  agencies  that  produced  it,  what  they 
may.  Every  part  of  an  organized  being,  also,  displays  design  ;  for  there 
is  no  better  definition  of  a  living  thing  than  that  of  Kant,  that  in  it  every 
part  is  both  means  and  end.  Some  talk  of  the  ''unknowable,"  but  they 
contradict  themselves  by  admitting  in  the  same  breath  that  the  unknowa- 
ble is  manifested  as  the  first  cause.  They  hold  that  it  is  only  as  a  cause 
that  we  recognize  its  existence.  But  this  cause  is  further  manifested  as 
intelligent  and  holy.  Nothing  can  be  more  sophistical,  than  the  remark 
of  Herbert  Spencer,  that  could  the  watch,  in  Paley's  illustration,  think, 
it  would  judge  its  Creator  to  be  like  itself,  a  watch.  Could  the  watch 
think  and  choose,  it  would  be  rational,  and  would  then  reason  like  other 
rational  beings,  and  conclude  that  the  artificer  of  such  a  product  as  itself 
must  have  designed  it  beforehand — that  is  to  say,  must  be  a  mind. 
21 


482  THE   UNREASONABLENESS    OF   ATHEISM. 

is  only  a  function  of  the  brain,  perisliing  with  it.  That  is 
to  say,  there  is  no  free,  contriving  intelligence  in  man. 
What  is  called  that,  is  only  a  product  of  the  movement  of  a 
blind,  unintelligent  force.  Then,  of  course,  we  cannot  con- 
clude that  there  is  a  free  intelligence  anywhere.  But  ma- 
terialism is  not  less  fatal  to  morals  than  religion,  for  it  anni- 
hilates responsibility.  In  truth,  it  is  fatal  to  the  higher  life 
of  man.  It  gives  the  lie  to  consciousness  which  testifies  to 
our  freedom,  and  to  our  guilt  for  wrong  choices.  It  de- 
stroys the  difference  between  truth  and  error  in  mental  per- 
ception ;  for  both  are  equally  the  result  of  the  molecular  ac- 
tion of  the  brain,  and  equally  normal.  It  provides  no  norm 
for  distinguishing  between  the  true  and  the  false.  It  de- 
stroys science,  for  who  can  say  that  the  molecular  movement 
by  which  science  is  thought  out,  may  not  at  any  time  change 
its  form,  and  give  rise  to  conclusions  utterly  diverse  ?  There 
is  no  end  to  the  absurdities  of  materialism  ;  a  doctrine  which 
can  be  maintained  only  by  a  disregard  of  phenomena,  the 
reality  and  proper  significance  of  which  no  reasonable  person 
can  call  in  question.  Let  scientific  exploration  be  carried  to 
the  farthest  bound — it  will  never  be  able  to  dispense  with 
God.  It  is  plain  that  the  world  is  a  cosmos — a  beautiful 
order.  It  came  to  be  such  by  the  operation  of  forces  mov- 
ing steadily  towards  this  end ;  for  anything  like  accident,  or 
properly  fortuitous  events,  science  can  never  admit.  The 
world  is  the  necessary  outcome  of  the  agencies,  be  they  few 
or  many,  near  or  remote,  that  gave  rise  to  it.  The  time  oc- 
cupied in  the  process  is  a  point  irrelevant ;  were  it  a  billion, 
or  ten  billions  of  years,  a  moment's  thought  transports  us  to 
the  beginning,  and  the  whole  problem  stares  us  in  the  face. 
There  is  a  plan ;  rational  ends  have  been  reached  by  adapta- 
tions and  arrangements  ;  and  thus  God  is  revealed.* 


*  The  statements  made  above  are  corroborated,  it  would  seem,  by  re- 
marks of  Professor  Huxley,  who  says  :  "  The  teleological  and  the  mechani- 
cal views  of  nature  are,  not  necessarily,  mutually  exclusive.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  more  purely  a  mechanist  the  speculator  is,  the  more  firmly  does 


THE    UNKEASONABLENESS   OF   ATHEISM.  483 

Thirdly,  the  folly  of  atheism  appears  in  its  failure  to 
discern  the  revelation  of  God  in  the  history  of  mankind. 
It  ignores,  also,  the  God  of  Providence.  The  history  of 
mankind  is  not  a  chaotic  jumble  of  occurrences,  but  an  or- 
derly sequence  where  one  set  of  events  prepares  for  another, 


he  assume  primordial  molecular  arrangement,  of  which  all  the  pheno- 
mena of  the  universe  are  consequences  ;  the  more  completely  is  he  there- 
by at  the  mercy  of  the  teleologist,  who  can  always  defy  him  to  disprove 
that  this  primordial  molecular  arrangement  was  not  intended  to  evolve 
the  phenomena  of  the  universe."  Quoted  in  Jackson's  Philosophy  of 
Natural  Theology,  p.  136.  On  the  relation  of  evolution  to  theism  and 
teleology,  see  the  excellent  remarks  of  Dr.  A.  Gray,  in  his  Darwiniana 
(New  York,  1876).  The  only  escape  from  teleology  is  in  the  doctrine  of 
an  eternal  sequence  of  causes  and  effects,  a  notion  which,  as  Dr.  Gray 
says,  ' '  no  sane  man  "  will  permanently  hold.  Such  a  notion  is  equivalent 
to  a  denial  of  all  real  causation,  since  the  eternal  regress  can  never  bring 
ns  to  the  thing  sought— a  real  cause  which  is  not  itself  an  effect.  The 
principle  of  causation,  as  a  subjective  conviction,  or  demand  of  the  intel- 
ligence, involves  the  belief  in  the  reality  of  such  a  first  cause. 

As  to  the  question  of  the  origin  of  man,  it  is  evident,  in  the  first  place, 
that  we  are,  on  one  side  of  our  being,  composed  of  matter.  This  is  an 
undeniable  fact.  What  is  the  origin  of  this  material  part  ?  It  may  be 
supposed  that  it  was  created  outright,  in  the  organized  human  form,  by  a 
fiat  of  the  Almighty,  when  the  first  man  was  called  into  being.  This  is 
one  supposition.  Another  is  that  man  was  made  out  of  the  "  dust  of  the 
earth" — out  of  pre-existing  inorganic  matter.  This  is  the  mode  of  con- 
ception in  the  biblical  writers.  See  Gen.  iii.  19,  Ps.  xc.  3,  civ.  29,  cxlvi. 
4,  Job  X.  9,  Eccl.  iii.  20.  Or,  thirdly,  it  may  be  supposed  that  man  was 
made  out  of  previously  existing  organized  matter — developed  from  a  lower 
class  of  animal  beings,  either  by  easy  gradations  (according  to  the  Dar- 
winian creed),  or  per  saltum.  If  by  slow  gradations,  the  proposition 
amounts  to  this,  that  beings  intermediate  between  man  and  existing  or 
extinct  lower  animals,  once  lived  on  the  earth.  This  remains  to  be 
proved,  the  intermediates  not  having  been  found.  Neither  of  these  hy- 
potheses necessarily  denies  the  reality  of  the  higher  endowments  of  man. 
They  impinge  upon  the  Christian  system  only  when  they  are  connected 
with  a  denial  of  the  distinctive  qualities  of  man  as  a  spiritual  being — his 
free  and  responsible  nature.  Precisely  how  and  when  he  received  from 
the  Creator  this  higher  nature — the  quomodo — is  a  question,  however  in- 
teresting, of  secondary  importance.  It  is  only  materialism — or,  what  is 
theologically  equivalent,  a  monism  which  identifies  soul  and  body — that 
cannot  cohere  with  the  truths  of  religion. 


484:  THE   UNEEASONABLENESS   OF   ATHEISM. 

and  where  rational  ends  are  wrought  out  by  means  adapted 
to  them.     There  is  a  divine  plan  stamped  upon  history : 

*' — thro'  the  ages  one  increasing  purpose  runs." 

And,  irrespective  of  this  plan,  records  of  the  past,  it  has 
been  well  said,  have  little  more  interest  for  us  than  the  bat- 
tles of  crows  and  daws.  There  is  a  design  connected  with 
history:  it  is  not  an  aimless  course  of  events — a  stream 
having  no  issue — a  meaningless  succession,  or  cycle  of  phe- 
nomena. Now  the  atheist  shuts  his  eyes  to  the  evident 
traces  of  a  providential  guidance  and  control  of  the  world's 
affairs.  It  is  chance,  he  says ;  or  if  there  is  law,  it  is  law 
without  a  law-giver.  That  moral  government  which  ap- 
pears in  the  prosperity  accorded  to  righteousness,  and  in  the 
penalties  that  overtake  iniquity — that  sublime  manifesta- 
tion of  justice  through  all  the  annals  of  mankind — declares 
the  presence  of  a  just  God.  The  minds  of  men,  when  un- 
perverted  by  false  speculation,  instinctively  feel  that  God 
reigns,  whenever  they  behold  these  providential  allotments. 
It  is  necessary  to  stifle  the  voice  of  nature,  and  to  resort  to 
some  far-fetched,  unsatisfactory  solution  of  the  matter,  in 
order  to  avoid  this  impression.  In  this  way,  the  conscience 
of  mankind  convicts  atheism  of  folly. 

Fourthly,  atheism  discerns  not  the  revelation  of  God  in 
Christ.  God  is  manifest  in  the  flesh.  I  waive  all  discus- 
sion of  the  Bible,  its  authority,  and  inspiration.  The  charac- 
ter of  Jesus  disclosed  in  the  Gospel  record  could  never  have 
been  imagined ;  it  vouches  for  its  own  reality,  and  thus  for 
the  history  in  and  through  which  it  is  made  known  to  us. 
In  Christ  there  is  a  manifestation  of  God.  The  power  that 
actuates  him  is  not  of  the  earth  and  not  of  man.  The 
righteousness  and  love  of  the  Father  are  reflected  as  in  an 
image.  The  Father  is  known  through  the  Son.  In  his 
face  we  behold  the  Invisible.*     His  soul  is  obviously  in  un- 

*  This  impression  was  actually  made  on  those  most  intimately 
ated  with  him.     See  John  i.  14,  xiv.  9,  Matt,  xtl  16. 


THE    UNREASONABLENESS   OF   ATHEISM.  485 

interrupted  communion  with  the  Father.  When  he  quits 
the  world,  he  says :  "  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend 
my  spirit."  Was  there  no  ear  to  hear  that  voice  ?  Was  it 
lost  in  boundless  space,  obtaining  no  response?  Then, 
verily, 

"  The  pillared  firmament  is  rottenness, 
And  earth's  base  built  on  stubble." 

Then  let  us  draw  a  pall  over  life,  with  its  flickering  joys, 
soon  to  be  quenched  in  eternal  night.  All  that  is  most  ele- 
vated, all  that  is  most  consoling,  all  that  raises  our  destiny 
above  that  of  the  brutes  that  perish,  is  built  on  illusion ! 
There  is  no  grand  future,  no  serene  hereafter,  where  the 
longing  soul  shall  have  its  profoundest  -aspirations  met  in 
the  fellowship  of  the  spiritual  world,  and  in  the  everlast- 
ing dominion  of  truth  and  righteousness.  "  Let  us  eat  and 
drink,  for  to-morrow  we  die."  The  senses,  at  least,  do  not 
mock  us.     The  pleasure  that  they  give  is  real,  as  far  as  it 


If  atheism  is  a  folly,  is  not  sin  at  the  root  of  it  ?  Kot,  it 
may  be,  a  particular  sinful  practice,  or  conscious  transgression, 
but  a  habit  of  feeling,  which  is  wrong,  and  which  spreads  a 
film  over  the  organ  of  spiritual  perception.  Can  a  man  who 
reflects,  as  he  ought,  upon  his  own  being,  and  deals  honestly 
with  himself  as  accountable  and  as  convicted  of  imworthi- 
ness  in  his  own  conscience,  rest  in  atheism  ?  Why  is  it  that 
to  one  mind  the  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  while 
to  another  mind  their  starry  surface  is  a  blank  page  ?  It  is 
because,  in  the  one  case,  there  is  first  a  recognition  of  God 
within  the  soul;  there  is  a  glad  acknowledgment  of  the 
Father  of  our  spirits,  to  whom  consciousness  and  conscience 
alike  testify.     In  the  other  case,  there  is  darkness  within. 

And  how  important  it  is  that  all  progress  in  knowledge 
should  bring  us  closer  to  God !  Alas,  that  the  study  of  the 
works  of  God  should  ever  be  prosecuted  in  such  a  spirit 
that  he  is  more  and  more  removed  out  of  sight !    Alas,  that 


4t8Q  THE  UNREASONABLENESS   OF   ATHEISM. 

the  study  of  history  should  ever  fail  to  confirm  the  scholar's 
faith  in  the  God,  of  whose  Providence  history  is  the  record ! 
Vain,  nay,  worse  than  in  vain,  are  all  our  studies,  if  they 
fail  to  deepen  our  faith  in  God.  The  student's  daily  prayer 
should  be 

— '*  what  in  me  is  dark 
Illumine,  what  is  low,  raise  and  support." 

Then  will  knowledge  prove,  indeed,  a  blessing. 

*'  Let  knowledge  grow  from  more  to  more, 
But  more  of  reverence  in  us  dwell ; 
That  mind  and  soul,  according  well, 
May  make  one  music  as  before, 

But  vaster." 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


487 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL  * 

There  are  two  very  different  classes  of  persons,  who, 
without  any  abuse  of  terms,  may  be  called  enemies  of  the 
Christian  faith.  In  the  one  there  is  a  latent  hostility  to 
principles  that  still  find  a  secret  approval  in  their  own  con- 
sciences. A  more  or  less  conscious  opposition  of  their  char- 
acters to  truth  that  is  known  or  surmised  to  exist  in  the 
Christian  system  is  at  the  bottom  of  their  hatred  of  it.  In 
the  other  class,  however,  their  enmity  may  be  traced  to  a 
wrong  bias  of  will,  or  perverse  tempers  of  feeling,  as  the  ul- 
timate source,  the  immediate,  conscious  ground  of  it  is  quite 
diverse.  There  is  no  immoral  practice,  no  unrighteous 
course  of  conduct,  that  shrinks  from  the  rebuke  uttered  in 
the  Gospel.  There  is  no  guilty  dread  of  the  light ;  there  is 
no  honest  conviction  smothered :  but  they  hate  Christianity 
because  they  misconceive  its  doctrine,  or  deem  it  to  be  at 
war  with  something  which  they  hold  as  sacred  truth.  From 
their  education,  falling  in,  perhaps,  with  their  native  intel- 
lectual tendencies,  or  from  some  other  influence,  they  have 
come  to  cherish,  with  theiu  whole  soul,  beliefs  that  appear 
to  clash  with  the  Christian  system.  From  their  point 
of  view,  they  cannot  do  otherwise  than  misjudge,  and, 
it  may  be,  detest  it.  Now,  as  one  of  this  class  can  be 
moved  to  embrace  the  religion  which  he  has  hated,  only  by 
being  enlightened ;  so,  in  case  he  does  embrace  it,  let  the 
change  be  never  so  radical,  there  will  be  a  certain  continuity 
between  his  life  before  and  his  life  after  his  conversion. 
His  previous  position,  with  whatever  moral  fault  he  may 

*  A  Lecture  in  Boston,  in  1871,  forming  part  of  a  course  of  Lectures  by 
different  persons,  on  Christianity  and  Skepticism. 


488  THE   APOSTLE   PAUL. 

charge  himself,  he  can  justly  attribute  to  a  misapprehension. 
His  new  views  are  a  rectification  of  the  old.  Underneath 
the  contrariety,  there  are  some  hidden  threads  of  unity. 
The  old  conception  has  proved  at  least  a  stepping-stone  to 
the  new.  Opposite  as  his  new  life  seems  to  his  former 
career,  there  is  a  logical  and  moral  bond  between  the  two. 
Paradoxical  as  it  may  appear,  a  thread  of  consistency  passes 
over  from  the  earlier  to  the  later  period  of  his  history. 

In  this  class  of  antagonists  of  the  Christian  faith  belonged 
Saul  of  Tarsus.  He  was,  in  a  sense,  an  intensely  religious 
man  before  he  believed  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Religion,  the 
relations  of  man  to  God,  was  tlie  ruling,  absorbing  thought 
of  his  mind.  It  was  not  science  or  learning,  or  any  purely 
mundane  interest  or  occupation,  that  engaged  his  attention. 
It  was  religion — the  relation  of  the  soul  to  God  and  the  su- 
pernatural order.  And  he  was  not  less  sincere  in  the  pro- 
fession than  he  was  earnest  in  the  practice  of  his  creed.  If 
there  were  many  Pharisees  who  delighted  in  the  hollow 
reputation  of  sanctity — knaves  and  impostors,  all  whose 
thoughts  centred  in  themselves — Paul  was  at  the  farthest 
remove  from  all  such.  He  was  elevated  above  the  influence 
of  a  vulgar  ambition,  and  he  was  an  utter  stranger  to  insin- 
cerity. There  is  no  hint  that  he  was  impeded  by  any  mis- 
givings when  he  was  performing  the  part  of  an  inquisitor 
against  the  disciples  of  Jesus.  The  phrase  "  It  is  hard  for 
thee  to  kick  against  the  pricks,"  refers  to  no  struggle  in  his 
own  mind :  it  simply  asserts  the  futility  of  the  attempt  to 
withstand  the  progress  of  the  new  faith.  He  had  entered 
on  an  abortive  undertaking  ;  he  had  plunged  into  a  hopeless 
enterprise  :  but  he  went  into  it  with  no  divided  mind.  He 
verily  thought  that  he  ought  to  extirpate  the  new  sect.  He 
had  no  stifled  misgivings,  no  scruples  of  conscience,  on 
the  subject.  What  he  did  he  did  ignorantly,  in  unbelief." 
He  considered  it  afterwards  a  sin,  but  a  sin  of  ignorance,  the 
responsibility  for  which  did  not  inhere  in  the  act  itself 
immediately,'  or  in  the  opinion  that  dictated  it. 


THE   APOSTLE   PAUL.  489 

Moreover,  his  ideal  of  character  remained,  in  its  general 
features,  the  same.  Righteousness  formed  that  ideal  before 
he  was  converted,  as  well  as  after.  In  the  earlier  period, 
his  idea  of  righteousness  included  both  personal  conformity 
to  the  standards  of  obligation,  and  that  unqualified  citizen- 
ship in  the  theocracy  which  involved  a  title  to  all  its  bless- 
ings, and,  among  them,  eternal  life.  Righteousness,  in  this 
inward  quality  and  outward  relation,  as  a  determination  of 
the  will  and  a  consequent  privilege,  was  to  him  the  sum  of 
all  good.  But  now  we  come  to  the  contrast.  He  first 
thought  that  the  way  to  attain  righteousness,  and  the  only 
way,  was  to  obey  the  Mosaic  statutes — the  moral  and  cere- 
monial ordinances  at  the  foundation  of  the  Hebrew  theo- 
cratic commonwealth.  The  Mosaic  institute,  in  w^hich  ethi- 
cal and  ritual  precepts  were  interwoven,  he  conceived  of  as 
something  permanent  and  eternal.  That  visible  form  of 
society,  which  had  God  for  its  direct  author,  was  to  endure 
as  long  as  the  sun  and  moon.  There  was  no  hope  for  man- 
kind except  in  the  extension  of  this  kingdom.  Hence  Paul 
joined  the  sect  whose  zeal  to  bring  in  the  heathen  moved 
them  "  to  compass  sea  and  land  to  make  one  proselyte ; " 
the  sect  at  the  head  of  that  aggressive  Judaism,  the  progress 
of  which  led  a  Roman  philosopher  to  declare  that  the  con- 
quered had  given  laws  to  the  conquerors.  Hence,  too,  the 
cause  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus  appeared  to  Paul  in  the  light 
of  an  impious  and  treasonable  revolt  against  the  divine 
order.  To  uphold  the  theocratic  state  in  full  unity  and 
vigor,  and  to  extend  the  sway  of  it  abroad,  was  the  first 
duty. 

If,  now,  we  look  at  Paul  the  apostle,  we  find  him  holding 
a  difPerent  view  of  the  place  and  office  of  the  Mosaic  system 
in  the  divine  plan.  That  system  no  longer  fills  his  eye  to 
the  exclusion  of  everything  else.  It  is  only  one  link  in  the 
chain ;  one  stadium  in  the  series  of  revelations.  He  has 
risen  to  a  more  comprehensive  view  of  the  divine  dispensa- 
tions, where  the  function  of  the  Old  Testament  law-system 
31* 


490  THE  APOSTLE   PAUL. 

is  perceived  to  be  subordinate  and  provisional ;  as  when, 
from  a  lofty  tower,  one  sees  mountains  and  plains  stretch- 
ing far  away  beyond  the  previous  boundaries  of  his  vision. 
Abraham  was  before  Moses;  promise  preceded  law.  The 
statutory  system  was  an  expedient,  wholesome  and  necessary, 
not  without  sacred  and  everlasting  elements  incorporated 
with  it,  yet,  as  a  system,  destined  to  give  place  to  a  spiritual 
kingdom  founded  on  a  different  principle.  This  kingdom  is 
spiritual,  the  head  of  it  being  an  invisible  person  to  whom 
we  are  connected  by  faith  which  takes  hold  of  the  unseen. 
It  is  thus  a  free  and  universal  religion,  in  contrast  with  the 
external,  local,  restricted  theocracy.  The  vast  revolution  of 
sentiment  which  Paul's  mind  underwent  might  be  termed  a 
deeper  insight  into  the  philosophy  of  history.  The  philoso- 
phy of  history,  the  science  that  aspires  to  interpret  the  plan 
of  God  in  the  course  of  human  affairs,  has  its  beginning  in 
the  Hebrew  prophets.  The  problem  that  inspired  Augus- 
tine to  compose  The  City  of  God,  and  Edwards  The  History 
of  RedeTYijption  /  the  problem  on  which  modern  thinkers  of 
80  diverse  character — Yico  and  Hegel,  Bossuet  and  Herder 
— ^have  labored — ^first  presented  itself  to  the  seers  of  Judaea 
and  Israel.  In  that  old  state-system,  where  the  little  princi- 
pality of  the  Jews  was  surrounded  by  the  mighty,  conquer- 
ing empires  of  Assyria,  Babylon,  and  Egypt,  what  chance 
had  that  feeble  kingdom  against  the  overwhelming  odds  % 
What  chance  was  there,  when  to  the  vast  preponderance  of 
force  on  the  side  of  their  neighbors  there  was  added  the  in- 
fectious example  of  their  idolatries  ?  Then  it  was  that  the 
prophets,  called  by  the  Spirit,  sometimes  from  the  sheep- 
pasture,  their  souls  filled  and  exalted  with  the  grand  idea  of 
an  indestructible  kingdom  of  God  on  earth,  pointed  to  splen- 
did and  opulent  cities,  the  London  and  New  York  and  Paris 
of  that  day,  and  predicted  their  downfall.  They  outstripped 
the  sagacity  of  the  profoundest  of  statesmen.  Edmund 
Burke  is  admired  with  reason  for  anticipating  events  of  the 
French  Revolution  ;  but  Burke,  in  the  very  work  that  con- 


THE   APOSTLE   PAUL.  491 

tained  these  vaticinations,  said  also  that  the  military  strength 
of  France  had  culminated,  and  was  no  more  to  be  feared. 
And  this  prediction  was  uttered  just  before  the  wars  of  Na- 
poleon. What  is  there  more  sublime  in  literature,  when  all 
the  circumstances  are  weighed,  than  the  words  of  Scripture, 
— "  There  shall  be  a  handful  of  com  in  the  earth  upon  the 
top  of  the  mountains ;  the  fruit  thereof  shall  shake  like 
Lebanon  ? "  K  one  inquires  for  their  fulfilment,  let  him  be- 
hold the  Christendom  of  to-day.  The  prophets  themselves 
did  not  divine  the  full  and  exact  sense  of  their  own  predic- 
tions. They  had  glimpses  of  the  felicity  of  the  kingdom  in 
its  future  developed  and  mature  form.  A  more  spiritual 
worship  was  to  characterize  it ;  a  more  unfettered  and  uni- 
versal character  was  to  belong  to  it.  Paul,  after  his  conver- 
sion, entered  into  the  import  of  these  prophetical  pictures, 
and  found  them  verified  and  realized  in  the  society  that 
looked  to  Jesus  as  its  head.  The  beginnings  of  this  society 
antedated  the  law.  The  germ  of  it  was  in  the  theocracy  it- 
self. But  the  kingdom  of  believing  souls,  as  it  existed  be- 
fore, might  exist  now,  independently  of  the  Mosaic  laws  and 
institutions.  Regarded  as  a  religious  institute,  they  had 
fulfilled  their  end. 

But  Paul  would  never  have  reached  this  view,  his  conver- 
sion would  have  remained  incomplete,  had  he  not  been 
driven  outside  of  the  law-system  by  the  force  of  some  in- 
ward experience.  This  was  the  painful  conviction  that  he 
had  been  mistaken  in  supposing  himself  righteous.  Instead 
of  having  attained  that  which  he  sought,  he  had  fallen  far 
short  of  it.  He  stood  at  a  hopeless  remove  from  the  stand- 
ard of  character  which  a  deeper  perception  of  human  obli- 
gations revealed  to  him.  With  the  loss  of  the  sense  of  in- 
ward righteousness,  his  standing  as  a  member  of  the  divine 
kingdom  was  gone  too.  Instead  of  being  a  just  or  justified 
member  of  the  theocratical  community,  he  was  a  condemned 
person.  Precisely  how  Paul  came  to  discern,  in  this  new 
light,  the  deep,  spiritual  demands  of  law,  we  have  not  the 


492  THE   APOSTLE   PAUL. 

means  of  answering.  It  may  be,  that,  in  the  crisis  of  his 
conversion,  teachings  of  Jesus  were  brought  to  his  knowl- 
edge by  some  of  the  disciples  who  instructed  him,  and  that 
these  gave  new  life  to  his  conscience.  Mr.  Matthew  Arnold, 
in  recent  clever  essays  upon  St.  Paul,  is  correct  in  asserting 
that  it  was  not  fear  that  lay  at  the  bottom  of  his  distress. 
This,  at  least,  was  not  the  chief  ingredient  of  that  shai-p 
anguish  of  spirit  which  he  suffered :  it  was,  rather,  the  sense 
of  unrighteousness.  It  was  tlie  humiliation,  the  piercing 
self-reproach,  the  burden  of  a  conscious  bondage  to  evil,  that 
afflicted  his  soul.  His  self-approbation  was  undermined. 
Instead  of  approving,  he  must  abhor  himself.  But  Mr. 
Matthew  Arnold  is  wrong  in  ignoring  the  element  of  guilt 
as  related  to  God,  or  the  objective  condemnation,  that 
formed  one  part  of  Paul's  misery.  Paul,  with  all  the  depth 
of  his  emotional  nature,  had  none  of  the  unhealthy,  one-sided 
subjectiveness  that  pertains  to  modern  pantheistic  tendencies 
of  thought.  He  was  not  shut  up  within  the  circle  of  his 
own  sensibilities.  He  wished  not  only  to  be  right  before 
himself,  but  also  to  stand  right  before  God.  Besides  the 
conscious  servitude  of  his  will  to  passion — the  "  video  pro- 
boque  meliora,  deteriora  sequor,"  of  the  heathen  poet — there 
was  the  objective  verdict  of  the  righteous,  infallible  judge. 
Where  did  he  get  relief  ?  ]N^ot  from  the  law,  in  whose  com- 
manding and  forbidding  there  was  no  force  that  could  over- 
come the  opposing  propensities  of  his  nature.  The  law  could 
condemn  and  threaten ;  but  it  could  not  create  a  principle  of 
obedience.  There  was  nothing  in  bare  law  to  subvert  the  do- 
minion of  sensuality  and  selfishness.  The  result  was  a  feel- 
ing of  wretchedness,  of  self -despair.  Paul  turned  to  Jesus  as 
a  helper.  Jesus  had  overcome  in  the  conflict  with  evil.  He 
had  died,  but  died  victorious.  The  patient,  self-denying 
sufferer  was  a  victor  in  the  struggle.  There  was  a  loveli- 
ness in  Christ  that  touched  the  sympathies  of  Paul,  and 
kindled  the  desire  to  walk  as  he  walked  ;  and  this  desire  was 
a  new  power  in  the  soul,  quite  distinct  from  the  influence  of 


THE   APOSTLE  PAUL.  493 

law.  But  moral  admiration,  deepening  into  sympathy,  is  not 
the  whole  of  what  the  apostle  meant  by  faith.  There  was  a 
love  from  Jesus  to  him  ;  there  was  a  compassion  of  God,  un- 
derlying the  whole  mission  of  Jesus.  That  love  and  com- 
passion Paul  believed  in.  The  helper  whom  he  received 
was  no  distant  hero,  who  exerted  power  only  through  an  in- 
spiring example ;  but  he  was  invisibly  present,  to  support, 
by  the  mysterious  influence  of  spirit  upon  spirit,  the  new 
life  which  he  had  awakened.  Hold  what  particular  view 
one  may  of  the  Pauline  doctrine  as  to  the  significance  of  the 
death  of  Jesus,  it  is  evident  that  Paul  saw  in  it  the  means 
and  the  assurance  of  forgiveness.  There  is  a  foundation  in 
his  teaching  for  the  ordinary  Protestant  idea  of  forensic  jus- 
tification. Righteousness  had  always  to  him  a  double  aspect : 
it  was  both  an  internal  quality  and  an  outward  relation.  But 
what  the  law  could  not  do  was  accomplished  through  the  per- 
sonal influence  of  Christ  upon  the  soul  united  to  him  in  sym- 
pathy and  dependence.  Nothing  in  Kenan's  book  upon  St. 
Paul  is  more  groundless  than  the  implication  that  his  per- 
sonal character  was  little  altered  by  his  becoming  a  Christian. 
A  new  spirit  of  love  took  possession  of  his  nature.  In  the 
room  of  the  fierce  temper  of  a  persecuting  zealot,  we  find  a 
genuine  humility,  a  constant  inculcation  of  kindness  and 
charity.  When  it  is  remembered  that  he  was  naturally 
high-spirited,  and  perhaps  irritable,  this  change  is  the  more 
touching.  "Love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering,  gentleness,  good- 
ness, faith,  meekness,  temperance  " — these  are  the  traits  on 
which  he  dwells.  Against  these,  he  says,  there  is  no  law. 
But  they  are  not  the  fruit  of  law  :  they  are  the  fruit  of  the 
Spirit.  They  have  their  springs  in  the  relation  of  the  soul 
to  Christ.  In  this  relation  there  was  a  great  liberty.  In 
regard  to  these  many  virtues  and  their  opposites,  the  apostle 
writes,  "Ye  are  not  under  the  law."  It  is  the  Christian 
paradox  of  a  correspondence  to  the  law,  but  from  motives 
and  impulses  to  the  law  unknown.  It  was  not  the  constraint 
of  a  statute  ;  but  "  the  love  of  Chi'ist  constraineth  us." 


494  THE  APOSTLE   PAUL. 

Observe,  now,  the  order  in  which  this  conversion,  in  its 
different  parts  or  constituent  elements,  took  place.  It  did 
not  begin  with  new  ideas  of  the  spiritual  character  of  the 
laW,  and  with  a  sense  of  sin  ;  but  the  historical  evidence 
necessitates  the  conclusion,  that  a  recognition  of  the  truth 
of  the  claims  of  Jesus  was  the  first  step.  The  apostle  him- 
self, in  his  writings,  attributes  the  change  to  a  sudden  reve- 
lation. Up  to  a  certain  moment,  he  had  thought  that  he 
ought  to  put  down  the  Christians  by  force.  There  was  no 
intermediate  process  of  reflection  and  inquiry  between  this 
state  of  feeling  and  his  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  as  the 
ascended  Lord  and  Messiah.  He  expressly  affirms  that  this 
primary  conviction  was  not  imparted  to  him  by  the  other 
apostles  through  the  exhibition  of  proofs.  How,  then,  did 
he  obtain  it  ?  It  was  not  by  reflecting  on  the  death  of 
Jesus  ;  for,  apart  from  the  consideration  that  his  first  belief 
resulted  from  no  process  of  examination,  the  death  of  Jesus 
was,  to  his  mind,  one  of  the  strongest  arguments  against  the 
verity  of  his  pretensions.  To  him,  as  to  other  Jews,  the 
cross  was  a  stumbling-block — an  insuperable  obstacle  in  the 
way  of  faith.  It  is  impossible,  then,  that  he  could  have 
believed  in  Jesus,  except  through  some  disclosure  of  him, 
real  or  supposed,  as  triumphant  over  death,  in  a  higher  and 
glorified  form  of  existence.  Therefore  the  testimony  of 
Paul  on  the  mode  of  his  conversion,  while  it  accords  with 
the  probabilities  of  the  case,  tends  to  corroborate  the  narra- 
tive of  Luke  respecting  the  journey  to  Damascus.  It  is  re- 
markable, however,  and  characteristic  of  Paul,  that,  besides 
the  vision  or  revelation  that  formed  the  primary  source  of 
his  belief,  he  discerns  the  value  of  external  testimony.  The 
resurrection  of  Jesus  is  verified,  he  affirms,  by  eye-witnesses, 
whom  he  enumerates,  presenting  the  evidence  in  a  circum- 
stantial manner.  There  was  a  series  of  interviews  of  the 
risen  Jesus  :  first  with  Peter  ;  then  with  the  Twelve  ;  then 
with  ^ve  hundred  brethren,  of  whom  the  greater  part,  he 
says,  were  then  living ;  after  that  with  James ;  then  again 


THE    APOSTLE   TAUL.  495 

with  all  the  apostles.  It  was  a  true  and  real  manifestation 
of  Jesus,  in  bodily  form,  to  the  senses  of  the  disciples.  The 
testimony  is  such,  considering  the  panic  and  despair  of  the 
witnesses  after  the  crucifixion,  and  the  outward  circumstan- 
ces, as  to  exclude  the  idea  of  an  hallucination  ;  but  it  was  a 
manifestation  to  the  disciples  and  believers  alone.  The  fact 
of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  an  indispensable  condition 
of  the  apostle's  faith  in  him. 

Here  we  fall  out  once  more  with  Mr.  Matthew  Arnold, 
who  is  duly  impressed  with  the  truth  that  Jesus,  in  the 
might  of  his  holy  love  to  God  and  men,  died  to  sin  and  the 
world ;  that  this  inward  death  was  perfected  and  shown  in 
his  death  on  the  cross,  and  was  the  means  of  a  true,  spirit- 
ual, eternal  life,  of  which  all  who  are  united  to  him  in  sym- 
pathy are  enabled  to  partake.  This,  without  doubt,  is  a 
vital  fart  of  Paul's  religion ;  but  it  is  not  the  whole.  Bis 
faith  rested  on  objective  realities.  Beyond  his  own  subjec- 
tive impressions  and  feelings,  there  must  be  the  word  of 
God.  The  resurrection  of  Jesus  proved  the  acceptance  of 
him  as  a  Redeemer :  it  was  the  counterpart,  the  sign  and 
necessary  consequence,  of  his  complete  victory  over  sin. 
Without  that  verifying  act  of  God,  faith  had  no  objective 
support,  and  was  vain.  The  soundness  of  the  apostle's  con- 
ception of  religion,  as  a  relation  to  God,  instead  of  a  mere 
round  of  inward  experiences,  where  the  subjective  feeling 
goes  for  every  thing,  appears  very  strikingly  at  this  point. 
The  pantheistic  drift  of  much  of  our  modern  speculation 
gets  no  countenance  from  him;  and  yet  where  shall  we  find 
an  equal  richness  and  depth  of  spiritual  experience,  or  so 
pj-ofound  a  representation  of  what  may  be  called  the  subjec- 
tive side  of  the  Gospel  ?  To  die  with  Christ  in  his  death, 
to  live  to  Christ,  to  live  because  Christ  lives  in  him — these 
are  his  familiar  thoughts.  But  as  the  death  of  Jesus  on  the 
cross  fulfilled  and  expressed  his  inward  dying  to  the  world, 
so  did  his  resurrection  express  and  demonstrate  his  life  in 
God. 


496  THE  APOSTLE   PAUL. 

By  the  resurrection  of  Jesns  to  a  spiritual  and  glorified 
form  of  existence,  he  becomes  the  head  of  a  kingdom  funda- 
mentally different  from  that  of  the  Jewish  dispensation. 
The  kingdom  has  shuffled  off  the  carnal  form  which  it  had 
previously  worn.  The  former  requirements  and  ceremonies 
are  something  quite  heterogeneous  to  its  present  mode  of 
being.  When  Paul  declares  that  he  does  not  any  longer 
know  Jesus,  according  to  the  flesh,  as  a  Jew,  the  member 
of  a  particular  nation,  with  local  and  national  associations 
upon  him,  he  sets  forth  in  the  strongest  possible  manner,  in 
a  manner  even  startling,  his  consciousness  of  the  altered 
character  of  the  kingdom.  The  throne  is  not  at  Jerusalem, 
but  in  heaven.  The  offering  is  not  bulls  and  goats,  but  our 
body  and  spirit,  a  reasonable — that  is,  a  spiritual,  or  inward 
— service.  The  temple  is  not  on  Mount  Zion,  but  is  the 
soul  of  the  believer.  The  whole  conception  turns  on  the 
fact  of  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of  Jesus. 

One  might  anticipate  what  attitude  a  man  of  Paul's  logi- 
cal intellect  and  fervid  spirit,  who  held  nothing  by  halves, 
would  assume  towards  Judaism  and  Judaizing  tendencies  in 
the  church.  A  great  amount  of  ingenuity  has  been  ex- 
pended of  late  in  an  effort  to  exhibit  Paul  as  at  variance 
with  the  other  apostles  on  the  subject  of  the  admission  of 
Gentiles  to  the  church,  and  on  the  whole  matter  of  their 
relation  to  the  Old  Testament  ritual.  As  a  means  to  this 
end,  a  deliberate  attempt  has  been  made  to  impeach  the  ve- 
racity of  Luke ;  or,  rather,  of  the  author  of  the  book  of 
Acts,  whom  the  negative  criticism  denies  to  have  been  Luke. 
This  last  attempt  breaks  down,  not  only  from  the  variety 
and  weight  of  evidence  in  behalf  of  the  genuineness  and 
historical  credibility  of  the  book  in  question,  but  also  from 
the  failure  to  establish  any  contradiction  between  the  gen- 
eral representations  of  Paul  himself  in  his  admitted  epistles 
and  the  testimony  of  the  Acts.  These  points  are  clear  from 
Paul's  own  statement — that  Peter,  James,  and  John  re- 
quired of  the  Gentiles  nothing  more  than  he  required ;  that 


THE   ArOSTLB   PAUL.  497 

thej  recognized  him  as  an  apostle ;  that  they  rejoiced  in  the 
conversion  of  the  heathen  converts  when  it  was  reported  to 
them ;  that  they  approved  of  the  contents  of  his  preaching, 
and  bade  him  God-speed  when  he  went  forth  on  his  errand, 
tliey  asking  and  receiving  at  his  hand  charities  for  the  poor 
Christians  at  Jerusalem  from  the  churches  which  he  planted. 
At  the  same  time,  it  was  inevitable,  and  it  is  perfectly  clear, 
that  the  original  band  of  apostles,  the  first  disciples  of 
Christ,  did  not  have  at  the  outset  that  clear  perception,  and, 
with  the  exception  of  John,  probably  never  had  that  sharp 
and  vivid  perception,  of  the  antithesis  of  the  new  system  to 
the  old,  which  had  seized  on  the  convictions  of  Paul.  The 
reason  is,  that,  under  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  they  came  out 
of  the  old  system  by  a  more  imperceptible  transition.  Their 
religious  life  was  a  growth,  in  which  their  traditional  ideas 
were  gradually  corrected  and  supplanted.  They  had  never 
entered  with  so  intense  earnestness  into  legal  Judaism  as 
Paul  had.  They  had  not,  like  him,  to  renounce  a  definite 
system  to  which  they  had  committed  themselves  with  all 
their  hearts,  and  from  which  they  were  parted  by  a  sudden 
access  of  light.  Analogous  phenomena  occur  at  the  present 
day  among  those  who  enter  upon  a  Christian  life.  In  some 
cases  there  is  a  conscious,  abrupt  revolution ;  in  other  cases. 
Christian  character  springs  almost  imperceptibly  out  of 
Christian  training.  A  diversity  in  the  mode  of  looking  at 
the  Gospel  is  the  natural  consequence.  The  wonder  is  that 
the  Galilean  apostles  could  so  entirely  emancipate  them- 
selves from  habitual,  inherited  impressions,  as  to  welcome 
the  heathen  converts  who  had  not  been  circumcised,  and  ex- 
tend a  cordial  fellowship  to  Paul.  But  he  was  not  only 
ready  to  tolerate  the  Gentiles  in  the  acceptance  of  the  bene- 
fits of  the  Gospel :  he  would  carry  these  benefits  to  them. 
He  would  enter  into  the  broad  field  that  opened  itself  far 
and  wide  before  him. 

The  effect  of  such  a  course  must  be  to  excite  the  malig- 
nant hostility  of  his  Jewish  countrymen.     He  must  appear 


498  THE   APOSTLE   PAUL. 

to  them  in  the  light  of  an  apostate,  and  become  the  object 
of  that  vindictive  hatred  which  partisans  feel  towards  a 
renegade  who  has  deserted  his  associates  and  passed  over 
into  the  camp  of  the  enemy.  But  the  development  of  the 
Jiidaizing  principle  within  the  church  was  destined  to  be 
still  more  mischievous  and  annoying.  Not  all  of  the  Phari- 
sees who  were  converted  had  Paul's  clearness  of  perception, 
nor  had  they  tested  by  so  thorough  a  personal  trial  the  legal 
method  of  salvation.  Hence  they  held  with  stubborn  tena- 
city to  the  idea  that  the  door  into  the  church  was  through 
the  Judaic  rite  of  circumcision.  To  concede  this,  as  Paul 
saw,  was  to  give  up  the  Gospel  as  a  spiritual  and  universal 
religion,  to  curtail  the  office  of  Christ  as  a  Saviour,  and  to 
sacrifice  the  liberty  of  the  heathen  convert  by  subjecting 
them  to  a  burdensome  ritual.  To  maintain  his  position  on 
this  point  was  the  battle  of  his  life.  By  his  instrumen- 
tality, more  than  by  that  of  any  other,  Christianity  was 
saved  from  sinking  down  into  a  Jewish  sect. 

In  the  encounter  with  Jews  and  Judaizers,  Paul  had  an 
objection  to  meet,  which  at  first  must  have  perplexed  his 
own  mind,  and  which  his  opponents  would  not  fail  to  urge 
with  the  utmost  emphasis.  Were  not  the  Jews  the  people 
of  God  ?  Were  they  not  a  chosen  nation  ?  As  such,  were 
they  not  to  receive  the  blessings  of  salvation?  When  it 
was  found  that  comparatively  few  of  the  Jews  believed  in 
Jesus,  and  when  the  number  of  Gentile  converts  was  rapidly 
increasing,  these  questions  could  not  fail  to  arise.  "  If  you 
are  right,"  said  the  unbelieving  Jew  to  Paul,  "  what  becomes 
of  election  and  the  promises  ? "  And  the  Judaizing  be- 
liever repeated  the  inquiry.  This  brings  the  apostle  to  the 
matter  of  predestination  and  election.  I  do  not  propose  to 
discuss  the  interpretation  of  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans — the  field  which  has  been  trodden  for  so 
many  generations  by  contending  armies  of  theological  com- 
batants— except  to  say  that  it  was  no  part  of  the  apostle's 
idea  to  offer  a  metaphysical  solution  of  the  old  problem  of 


THE   APOSTLE   PAUL.  499 

liberty  and  necessity,  any  more  than  it  was  his  design,  in 
the  fifth  chapter,  to  solve  the  mystery  of  original  sin.  All 
that  I  propose  is  to  point  out  the  historical  occasion  of  his 
introducing  the  subject.  The  actual  rejection  of  Christ  by 
a  great  majority  of  the  Jewish  people  forced  him  to  con- 
sider their  selection  by  God,  and  what  the  nature  of  it  was. 
In  short,  it  opened  up  what  we  have  called  the  philosophy 
of  history,  the  character  of  the  Jewish  dispensation.  There 
had  not  been  a  strict  adherance  to  the  hereditary  principle 
on  the  part  of  God  in  constituting  the  chosen  people.  The 
principle  of  legitimacy,  so  to  speak,  had  been  set  aside  by 
his  decree.  He  had  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  been  bound,  in 
the  past,  by  the  mere  consideration  of  lineage.  Isaac  was 
not  the  only  child  of  Abraham,  and  Jacob  was  an  example 
of  a  deviation  from  the  natural  order  of  succession ;  the 
reason  being,  in  both  cases,  the  divine  choice  and  appoint- 
ment. Therefore  the  Jewish  theory  of  hereditary  claims 
and  exclusive  national  rights  was  a  false  one,  as  their  own 
history  proved.  What  should  prevent  God,  then,  if  he  saw 
fit,  from  giving  the  blessing  of  salvation  to  the  Gentiles? 
There  was  no  principle  of  the  divine  administration  that 
imposed  any  fetters  upon  his  will  in  this  particular.  Hence, 
if  the  Jews  lost  the  gift,  and  the  heathen  received  it,  no  one 
had  a  right  to  charge  the  Divine  Being  with  inconsistency, 
or  a  disregard  of  lawful  claims.  But  Paul  does  not  leave 
the  discussion  without  bringing  forward  his  usual  doctrine — 
that  the  blessings  of  grace  are  transmitted  in  the  line  of 
faith,  instead  of  that  of  carnal  descent.  It  is  not  member- 
ship  in  a  race,  but  faith,  that  puts  one  in  possession  of  them, 
as  the  narrative  of  Abraham  himself  proved.  The  Calvinist 
will  always  point  to  the  apostle's  language  about  Pharaoh, 
and  to  the  illustration  of  the  potter  and  the  clay  ;  the  Ar- 
minian  will  appeal  to  his  declaration,  that  the  reason  why 
Israel  had  not  attained  to  righteousness  is  because  "  they 
sought  it  not  by  faith,"  and  that  the  rejection  of  Israel  is  tem- 
porary until  the  Gentiles  have  been  gathered  into  the  church. 


500  THE    APOSTLE    PAUL. 

Both  unite  in  denying  salvation  by  works  or  human  merit, 
and  in  attributing  all  the  praise  to  God  ;  and  this  was  the 
truth  which  the  apostle  had  most  at  heart.  I  have  often 
thought,  that,  had  I  the  genius  of  Walter  Savage  Landor,  I 
would  compose  an  imaginary  conversation  between  John 
Calvin  and  John  Wesley,  two  men  who  were  equals  in  firm- 
ness of  conviction  and  energy  of  will,  and  with  an  ardor 
that  impels  them  to  pour  out  abundant  anathemas  against 
the  doctrines  that  offend  them.  To  Wesley,  election  meant 
the  divine  authorship  of  sin,  and  insincerity  in  the  invita- 
tions of  the  Gospel ;  to  Calvin,  the  denial  of  election  meant 
salvation  by  merit,  and  the  insecurity  of  the  trembling  and 
tempted  believer.  Each  fights  the  inferences  that  he  de- 
duces from  the  doctrine  of  the  other  ;  and  each  denies  that 
the  inferences  of  his  opponent  are  fairly  drawn.  But  how 
insignificant  is  the  real  difference  between  them  when  com- 
pared with  what  they  hold  in  common !  It  is  one  conse- 
quence of  the  historical  method  of  exegesis,  which,  in  con- 
nection with  a  more  correct  philosophy,  characterizes  the 
biblical  interpretation  of  the  present  time,  that  a  new  point 
of  view  is  often  gained,  from  which  difficulties  are  lessened, 
and  the  rigid  interpretation  of  the  dogmatical  school  is 
modified  by  the  infusion  of  a  more  genial,  penetrative,  and 
catholic  spirit.  Even  Peter  did  not  find  the  style  of  Paul 
very  perspicuous.  His  impetuous  mind  does  not  stop  to  fill 
out  a  chain  of  reasoning,  or  guard  an  illustration  from  a 
possible  misuse.  His  swift  mind  leaves  gaps  for  the  reader 
himself  to  supply.  His  thoughts,  in  their  hurry,  jostle  one 
another ;  and  parenthesis  is  thrown  within  parenthesis  to 
help  him  in  the  utterance  of  them.  Before  one  idea  is 
fully  expressed,  it  is  overtaken  by  another ;  as  a  wave  flow- 
ing into  the  shore  is  chased  and  overrun  by  the  wave  be- 
hind it.  Hence,  of  all  writers,  he  requires  breadth  and  in- 
sight in  the  interpreter  who  would  explore  his  meaning. 

The  Pauline  type  of  doctrine  is  frequently  brought  into 
comparison  with  the  types  of  doctrine  presented  in  the  Epis- 


raE    APOSTLE   PAUL.  601 

tie  of  James  and  the  writings  of  John.  It  is  more  obvious 
to  students  of  the  Bible  now  than  formerly,  that  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  apostles  did  not  operate  to  supersede,  but  to  in- 
tensify, their  native  faculties  of  mind.  It  was  dynamic,  not 
mechanical,  in  its  mode  of  action.  The  effect  of  it  was  or- 
ganic— to  elevate,  to  guide,  to  purify  the  powers  of  intellect 
and  feeling,  but  not  to  supplant  them,  and  not  to  extinguish 
their  peculiarities,  or  check  their  free  movement,  as  by  an 
agency  exerted  upon  them  from  without.  Nor  did  inspira- 
tion interfere  with  the  individuality  of  religious  character 
that  belonged  to  the  apostles.  What  type  their  piety  as- 
sumed varied  with  their  natural  traits.  They  were  all  de- 
pendent on  Christ,  and  moulded  by  his  influence ;  but,  like 
various  musical  instruments  touched  by  the  same  hand — the 
lute,  the  organ,  and  the  harp,  which  give  forth  various  tones 
and  strains  of  melody^so  is  the  characteristic  nature  of  each 
of  the  apostles  manifest.  The  inspiration  of  the  apostles 
differs  from  the  inspiration  that  has  produced  the  master- 
pieces of  literature — first,  that  the  former  relates  to  relig- 
ious and  ethical  truth ;  and,  secondly,  that  the  products  of  it 
are  verified  to  us,  and,  for  this  reason,  endued  with  author- 
ity. The  divine  agency  here  includes  a  miraculous  element, 
by  which  the  sacred  books  are  set  apart  from  all  human 
productions  ;  even  the  loftiest  efforts  of  genius,  though  gen- 
ius may  handle  the  themes  of  religion.  But  the  human  ele- 
ment, out  of  which  grow  the  individuality,  naturalness,  and 
personal  living  force  of  the  apostolic  writers,  is  not  less  evi- 
dent than  the  divine  element  which  has  imparted  to  them  an 
inexhaustible,  as  it  is  an  altogether  unique,  power.  When 
we  compare  Paul  with  James,  we  perceive  that  James  puts 
forth  no  contrary  doctrine  on  the  method  of  salvation. 
When  he  declares  that  faith  without  works  is  dead,  he  shows 
that  he  conceives  of  faith  as  containing  a  seed  of  virtue  or 
holy  living,  so  that  good  works  are  not  an  adjunct  of  faith, 
but  a  necessary  fruit.  Faith  has  lost  its  vitality,  it  resembles 
a  corpse,  when  it  no  longer  produces  right  and  benevolent 


602  THE   APOSTLE   PAUL. 

conduct.  This  is  precisely  the  conception  of  Paul.  As  to 
his  relations  to  John,  it  is  common  to  designate  the  one  as 
the  apostle  of  faith,  and  the  other  of  love.  There  are  cur- 
rent sayings  like  that  of  Schelling,  who  marks  off  three  pe- 
riods of  the  church  :  the  first  being  the  age  of  Peter,  the  era 
of  law  and  ecclesiastical  order ;  the  second,  the  age  of  Paul, 
the  era  when  faith  is  held  in  highest  honor,  the  age  of  Prot- 
estantism ;  and  the  third,  the  age  of  John,  the  coming  age 
of  love.  Penan  thinks  to  disparage  Paul  by  calling  him  a 
Protestant,  the  forerunner  and  author  of  Protestantism.  But 
turn  to  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Cor- 
inthians :  "  jS'ow  abideth  faith,  hope,  love — these  three  ;  but 
the  greatest  of  these  is  love."  Without  love,  he  declares,  all 
gifts  are  worthless — the  gift  of  tongues ;  the  gift  of  prophecy 
—the  eloquence  of  the  preacher  ;  the  gift  of  knowledge — all 
intellectual  superiority ;  the  gift  of  faith,  by  which  miracles 
were  performed  ;  the  habit  of  alms-giving  without  stint ;  the 
martyr-spirit — all  are  of  no  account  without  the  love,  which 
includes  a  gentle,  forgiving  temper  ;  is  the  opposite  of  envy 
and  jealousy,  of  mistrust,  of  rudeness  and  indecorum,  of 
pride  and  boasting ;  the  love  which  delights  at  seeing  men 
good,  and  deplores  their  sin  ;  that  is  patient  under  the  bur- 
dens of  life ;  that  leaves  no  room  for  self-seeking.  Love 
alone  is  the  imperishable  virtue :  faith  will  give  way  to 
sight,  and  hope  to  fruition.  "  On  each  side  of  this  chapter," 
says  Dean  Stanley,  "  the  tumult  of  argument  and  remon- 
strance still  rages ;  but  within  it  all  is  calm :  the  sentences 
move  in  almost  rhythmical  melody ;  the  imagery  unfolds  it- 
self in  almost  dramatic  propriety ;  the  language  arranges  it- 
self with  almost  rhetorical  accuracy.  We  can  imagine  how 
the  apostle's  amanuensis  must  have  paused  to  look  up  in  his 
master's  face,  and  seen  his  countenance  lighted  up  as  it  had 
been  the  face  of  an  angel,  as  this  vision  of  divine  perfection 
passed  before  him."  'Now  turn  to  John ;  and  what  do  we 
meet  with  at  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel  ? — "  To  as  many 
as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  be  the  sons  of 


THE   APOSTLE   PAUL.  503 

God ;  even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name."  Later  we 
read :  "  This  is  the  work  of  God,  to  believe  on  him  whom 
he  hath  sent."  The  love  to  him  who  hath  first  loved  us,  on 
which  John  dwells — what  is  it  but  faith  ?  We  believe  in  a 
love  to  us  that  has  gone  before  all  love  on  our  side.  Respon- 
sive love  implies  faith.  Faith,  in  the  doctrine  of  Paul  and 
John  alike,  is  the  connection  of  the  soul  with  Christ,  from 
which  love  and  all  other  parts  of  goodness  result.  The  unity 
of  apostolic  doctrine  lies  in  the  common  view  of  Christ  as 
the  one  source  of  life.  He  is  the  vine,  sending  life  and 
f ruitfulness  through  the  branches. 

Had  Paul  been  less  pure  and  disinterested  in  character, 
he  would  infallibly  have  been  made  the  head  of  a  party ; 
but  when  he  heard  of  the  attempt  at  Corinth  to  set  him  in 
this  position,  and  to  organize  a  sect  to  be  called  by  his  name, 
he  repelled  the  project  with  indignation.  It  was  a  kind  of 
man- worship,  and  a  dishonor  to  Christ,  from  which  his 
whole  nature  recoiled.  '  Who,  then,'  he  said,  '  is  Paul  ? 
Who  is  Paul  ?  Was  Paul  crucified  for  you  ?  Paul  and 
Apollos  are  but  ministers ;  and  shall  the  servant  usurp  the 
place  of  his  Lord  ? ' 

In  connection  with  his  warm  utterances  on  this  subject,  he 
tells  us  how  to  look  upon  uninspired  authors  of  systems  of 
ethics  and  theology.  There  is  only  one  foundation  ;  and 
that  is  Christ,  and  his  work  as  a  Saviour.  Whoever  builds 
on  this  foundation  is  a  Christian  teacher ;  but  he  may  mingle 
in  his  system,  in  the  superstructure  which  he  builds  up  by 
the  effort  of  his  intellect,  wood,  hay,  and  stubble,  or  ele- 
ments of  doctrine  that  will  not  endure  the  searching  test. 
Building  on  the  true  foundation,  he  is  personally  saved  ;  but 
the  system  that  he  has  created  is  a  human  work,  is  liable  to 
imperfection,  and  will,  at  last,  be  sifted.  In  this  light  the 
great  system-makers  in  the  church — as  Origen,  Augustine, 
Aquinas,  Calvin,  Edwards — are  to  be  regarded.  Their  un- 
dertaking is  legitimate :  they  may  render  a  great  service  in 
the  exposition  and  defence  of  truth ;  but  they  are  not  au- 


504  THE   APOSTLE   PAUL. 

thoritative  teachers ;  and,  when  an  undue  deference  is  paid 
to  them,  Christ  loses  the  place  that  belongs  to  him.  If  Paul 
was  offended  that  his  name  should  be  given  to  a  party  in  the 
church,  is  there  not,  to  say  the  least,  an  equal  objection  to 
'  the  practice  of  Christians,  in  later  ages,  of  arraying  them- 
selves under  the  banner  of  some  favorite  theologian  ? 

Turning  now  from  the  doctrine  to  glance  at  the  work  of 
the  apostle  Paul,  we  find  him,  by  the  natural  bent  of  his 
mind,  a  missionary.  After,  as  before  his  conversion,  he  was 
a  propagandist.  A  life  of  contemplative  devotion  wouldv 
have  been  intolerable  to  him.  His  favorite  metaphor  is 
drawn  from  the  race-course :  athletes  and  soldiers  are  his 
types  of  Christian  manliness.  There  is  one  popular  idea 
respecting  Paul,  which,  I  think,  is  ill-founded.  He  is  fre- 
quently styled  a  learned  man.  It  is  true  that  he  may  be 
called  a  scholar,  so  far  as  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  and 
the  theology  and  casuistry  of  the  Jewish  schools  are  con- 
cerned. As  an  intellectual  man,  he  is  to  be  rated  above 
most,  and  probably  all,  of  the  apostles,  who  belonged  to 
what  was  considered  by  their  countrymen  the  uneducated 
class.  But  there  is  no  sufficient  ground  for  supposing  that 
Paul  was  a  learned  man  in  the  sense  in  which  this  term  is 
generally  applied  to  him.  It  is  not  probable  that  he  had 
studied  the  Greek  authors.  Remember  that  he  was  of  the 
stock  of  Israel,  a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews;  born,  not  of 
proselytes,  but  of  Hebrew  parentage  on  both  sides.  It  is 
not  improbable  that  his  father  or  grandfather  had  been  a 
captive  in  war,  and,  being  emancipated,  had  acquired  the 
right  of  citizenship  which  descended  to  Paul.  But  his 
father,  though  living  in  Tarsus,  a  cultivated  city,  was  a  rigid 
Jew.  Had  he  found  his  son  reading  a  pagan  writer,  it  is 
likely  that  he  would  have  dealt  with  him  as  one  of  our  Puri- 
tan ancestors  would  have  treated  a  child  whom  he  had  caught 
reading  the  tales  of  Boccaccio.  Transferred  at  an  early  age 
to  Jerusalem,  he  sat  at  the  feet  of  the  Jewish  doctor,  Gama- 


THE    APOSTLE   PAUL.  605 

liel.  Here  the  method  of  instruction  was  interlocutory ;  a 
stimulating  method,  which  was  practised  also  by  the  masters 
of  Greek  philosophy,  and  is  too  little  in  vogue  in  our  mod- 
ern schemes  of  education.  Gamaliel  is  represented  in  the 
Jewish  tradition  as  more  tolerant  in  reference  to  Greek  wis- 
dom than  most  of  the  rabbis  of  that  day.  He  gave  advice 
to  the  Sanhedrim  that  might  indicate  that  the  apostles  had 
made  some  impression  on  him  of  a  favorable  kind ;  but,  on 
the  other  hand,  might  imply  an  expectation  on  his  part  that 
the  new  sect  would  soon  die  a  natural  death.  The  president 
of  the  Sanhedrim,  it  is  not  probable  that  he  had  any  real  in- 
clination towards  the  Christian  doctrine,  except  as  far  as  it 
recognized  the  belief  in  a  resurrection,  which  the  Pharisees 
also  cherished.  But,  whatever  was  the  temper  of  the  teach- 
er, we  know  very  w^ell  what  were  the  sentiments  and  spirit 
of  the  pupil.  "  After  the  straitest  sect  of  our  religion,"  he 
says,  "  I  lived  a  Pharisee  ;  .  .  .  .  concerning  zeal,  perse- 
cuting the  church."  After  his  conversion,  and  his  return 
from  Arabia,  he  spent  several  years  again  at  Tarsus.  Here 
it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  he  came  in  contact  with  dis- 
ciples of  the  Greek  philosophy ;  in  particular,  of  the  Stoic 
system,  of  which  Tarsus  was  a  flourishing  seat.  The  occa- 
sional use  of  Stoic  phraseology  and  maxims,  in  a  new  and 
higher  application,  in  his  writings,  is  certainly  remarkable, 
and  may  be  owing  to  opportunities  of  personal  intercourse 
with  Stoic  teachers  which  he  then  enjoyed.  His  coinci- 
dences, extending  even  to  forms  of  expression,  with  Seneca,, 
are  much  more  reasonably  ascribed  to  that  sort  of  acquain- 
tance with  Stoic  doctrine  than  to  a  personal  acquaintance  of 
the  two  men ;  a  supposition  which  has  little  evidence  in  its 
favor.  But  what  is  the  proof  that  he  was  possessed  of  the 
erudition  that  is  sometimes  attributed  to  him  ?  A  passage 
that  occurs  in  the  poet  Aratus,  who  happens  to  have  been  a 
native  of  Tarsus,  to  the  effect  that  we  are  the  offspring  of 
God  (Acts  xvii.  28) ;  and  a  hexameter  line,  which  occurs  in 
Epimenides,  on  the  bad  qualities  of  the  Cretans  (Tit.  i.  12). 
23 


606  THE    APOSTLE   PAUL. 

But  these  sayings,  it  is  likely,  were  scraps  in  general  circu- 
lation, and  no  more  indicate  a  familiarity  with  Greek  authors 
than  the  repetition  of  the  words,  "  An  honest  man  is  the  no- 
blest w^ork  of  God,"  with  the  accompanying  remark,  that  it 
is  an  utterance  of  some  of  the  English  poets,  proves  a  man 
to  be  conversant  with  English  literature.  There  is  no  indi- 
cation in  Paul's  writings,  and  no  proof  from  any  quarter, 
that  he  had  read  JEschylus  or  Homer,  Plato  or  Demosthenes, 
or  any  other  classic  writer  of  heathen  antiquity.  Had  he 
studied  either  of  these  authors,  it  is  hardly  possible  that  dis- 
tinct traces  of  this  fact  should  be  missing  from  his  writings. 
The  style,  as  well  as  the  contents,  of  his  letters,  would  ex- 
hibit signs  of  a  culture  so  diverse  from  that  which  the  rab- 
bis afforded.  The  "  much  learning  "  which,  as  Festus  thought, 
had  made  Paul  mad,  was  converse  with  Jewish,  not  Gentile 
books ;  and  of  this  matter  Festus  was  a  poor  judge,  learning 
being  a  source  of  insanity  to  which  he  had  probably  taken 
care  not  to  expose  himself.  Perhaps  the  impression  to  which 
we  refer  in  respect  to  Paul's  Gentile  learning  may  have 
sprung  from  a  natural  wish  of  some  minds  to  have  one 
among  the  apostles  who  could  lay  claim  to  this  distinction. 
It  reminds  one  of  the  lavish  praise  that  it  was  once  the  cus- 
tom of  preachers  to  bestow  on  the  scientific  acquirements  of 
the  first  man ;  as  when  Robert  South  says  that  Aristotle  was 
but  the  rubbish  of  Adam,  and  Athens  the  ruins  of  Paradise. 
But  Paul  is  indebted  for  his  eminence  to  sources  of  power 
far  higher  than  literature  and  science  can  confer.  It  was 
impossible  that  all  vestiges  of  his  rabbinical  training  should 
be  cast  aside ;  but  they  serve  as  a  foil  to  set  off  more  im- 
pressively the  native  vigor  of  his  mind.  If  he  did  not  de- 
vote himself  to  the  study  of  the  heathen  authors,  he  fully 
comprehended  heathenism  as  a  religious  phenomenon.  The 
religious  aspiration  that  lies  at  the  root  of  heathen  worship 
is  pointed  out  in  the  discourse  at  Athens.  The  origin  of 
idolatry  is  revealed  in  the  opening  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans.     The  responsibility  of  those  who  have  not 


HE   APOSTLE   PAUL.  607 

been  taught  by  a  written  revelation  is  proved  by  referring 
to  the  testimony  of  their  own  consciences  and  the  law  writ- 
ten on  the  heart.  How  was  the  declaration  of  the  Saviour, 
that  "  salvation  is  of  the  Jews,"  verified  afresh  when  this 
"  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews  "  stood  on  Mars'  Hill,  and  proclaim- 
ed to  an  audience  of  Athenians  Jesus  and  the  resurrection  ! 
Among  the  qualifications  of  Paul  for  his  peculiar  work  as 
a  propagator  of  the  gospel  and  a  founder  of  churches,  the 
singular  blending  of  enthusiasm  with  prudence  in  his  nature 
deserves  attention.  There  was  a  fire  which  no  difiiculties 
that  stood  in  his  path  could  quench  ;  but  along  with  it  there 
was  a  moderation,  the  temperance  or  sobriety,  which  kept 
him  back  from  all  extravagance.  He  unites  a  zeal,  which 
one  might  think  would  brook  no  restraint,  with  a  wonder- 
ful tact  and  shrewdness.  A  certain  sagacity,  or  good  sense, 
presides  over  his  conduct.  His  burning  zeal  never  runs 
into  fanaticism.  At  the  right  time,  he  knows  how  to  con- 
sult expediency.  When  we  find  these  apparently  incongru- 
ous qualities  combined  in  the  champion  of  anycause,  we  may 
look  out  for  great  results.  These  traits  mingle  in  the  char- 
acter of  such  a  statesman  as  Cromwell,  and  in  the  founders 
of  some  of  the  great  religious  orders  in  tlie  Catholic  Church. 
The  history  of  Paul  contains  many  examples  of  the  oppor- 
tune exercise  of  this  prudence  and  tact.  He  would  not 
yield  an  inch  to  the  demand  of  the  Judaizers  when  the 
principle  was  at  stake,  even  though  Peter  was  seduced  to  give 
them  his  tacit  support ;  but  he  rebuked  this  leading  apostle 
in  pointed  terms.  Yet  he  would  go  very  far  in  making 
concessions  to  remove  the  misunderstanding  and  prejudice 
of  the  Jews,  and  to  pacify  Jewish  feeling  that  was  offended 
by  his  apparently  radical  proceedings.  Before  the  Sanhe- 
drim he  contrived,  by  avowing  himself  a  believer  in  one  of 
the  doctrines  of  the  Pharisees,  to  kindle  a  strife  between 
the  two  schools  of  doctors,  in  the  smoke  of  which  he  effected 
his  escape.  He  was  not  afraid  of  the  face  of  man  :  he  did 
not  tremble  before  the  furious  mob  at  Jerusalem,  and  he 


508  THE   APOSTLE   PAIJIi. 

stood  before  Kero  without  quailing.  But  he  was  not  the 
man  to  throw  away  his  life  ;  and  he  did  not  think  it  undig- 
nified to  be  let  down  in  a  basket  from  the  wall  of  Damascus. 
He  had  no  heroic  moods  that  moved  him  to  fling  away  a 
reasonable  caution.  His  courtesy  to  heathen  magistrates, 
even  bad  men,  is  in  marked  contrast  with  the  temper  of  a 
fanatic.  A  refinement  and  delicacy  of  sentiment  are  never 
wanting.  He  considers  it  a  superstition  to  refuse  to  eat  the 
meat  of  animals  that  have  been  killed  at  the  altars  of  Jupi- 
ter, Diana,  or  Neptune ;  but  he  would  drive  nobody  into 
doing  what  he  felt  to  be  wrong,  however  unfounded  his 
scruples  might  be.  He  would  not,  like  a  fanatic,  insist  on 
the  outward  act  before  the  conviction  was  ripe  for  it.  In  a 
kind  of  chivalry  of  tenderness,  as  one  has  called  it,  he  would 
himself  abstain  from  eating  such  meat,  if  his  example  was 
to  mislead  a  weak  and  superstitious  brother  into  the  doing 
of  a  right  thing  against  his  conscience.  The  practical  wis- 
dom, or  sobriety,  of  Paul,  is  illustrated  on  a  point  where  an 
ignorant  criticism  has  often  condemned  or  sneered  at  him — 
in  what  he  says  of  the  dress  and  deportment  of  Christian 
women.  He  paid  a  proper  respect  to  the  ancient  ideas  of 
decorum,  not  wishing  unnecessarily  to  stir  up  a  prejudice 
where  there  was  already  hostility  enough  against  the  infant 
churches.  Paul  is  censured  for  the  very  things  that  pre- 
vented the  churches  from  being  broken  up  by  tumults  with- 
in, and  by  enmity  and  suspicion  without.  He  knew  just 
where  to  draw  the  line  between  a  Christian  independence 
and  a  reckless  fanaticism.  He  would  do  more  than  excite  a 
commotion:  he  would  organize  and  build  on  enduring foun-. 
dations.  I  wish  that  all  zealots  for  social  reforms  would 
spend  the  time  which  they  devote  to  supercilious  criticism 
upon  Paul  in  the  humble  study  of  his  life.  Let  me  observe 
here,  that  no  man  has  given  a  higher  honor  to  woman,  or  set 
a  higher  dignity  and  sacredness  upon  marriage,  than  the 
apostle  who  makes  it  the  symbol  of  the  union  of  Christ  with 
his  church. 


THE    APOSTLE   PAUL.  609 

The  sympathy  of  Paul  with  his  fellow-disciple^,  with  his 
countrymen,  and  with  all  men,  "  Greeks  and  Barbarians," 
made  self-sacrifice  the  habit  of  his  life.  He  clasped  the  lit- 
tle churches  as  children  in  his  arms.  In  his  communications 
to  them,  he  poured  out  his  tender  solicitude  and  more  than 
paternal  affection.  All  that  he  is,  all  that  he  experienced, 
is  for  them.  Whether  he  is  afflicted  or  consoled,  it  is  a 
divine  appointment  for  their  benefit.  Any  form  of  spirit- 
ual good  that  he  may  possess  is  not  for  Limself,  but  has 
been  given  that  it  might  be  imparted  again  to  them.  A 
beautiful  instance  of  this  identification  of  himself  with  his 
brethren  is  found  in  the  passage  (2  Cor.  i.  4)  in  which  he 
speaks  with  gratitude  of  the  comfort  which  he  had  received 
from  God,  "  who  comforteth  us  in  all  our  tribulation,  that 
we  may  he  able  to  comfort  them,  which  are  in  any  trouhle  hy 
the  comfort  wherewith  we  are  comforted  of  GodP  So  deep 
is  his  sympathy  for  his  kinsmen  of  the  race  of  Israel,  that 
he  would  himself  willingly  be  cut  off  and  cursed  for  their 
sake !  A  power  in  itself,  the  self-denying  love  of  the  apostle 
called  out  all  his  energies,  and  kept  them  directed  to  a  sin- 
gle end. 

The  absorbing  religious  consecration  of  Paul  is  the  lead- 
ing feature  in  his  character.  His  earnest,  strenuous  devo- 
tion to  the  word  to  which  he  had  been  called  by  the  Master 
had  no  intermission,  and  knew  no  rest.  It  must  not  be  for- 
gotten that  we  have  in  the  book  of  Acts  a  sketch  of  only  a 
fragment  of  Paul's  missionary  career,  which  covered,  in  all, 
a  period  of  thirty  years.  In  the  reference  that  he  incident- 
ally makes  to  the  perils,  indignities,  and  hardships  to  which 
he  had  been  subject — how  he  had  been  scourged  and 
stoned ;  had  fallen  among  robbers ;  been  exposed  to  the 
plots  of  hostile  Jews  and  treacherous  disciples,  to  hunger 
and  cold  ;  burdened  with  the  care  of  churches  only  just  con- 
verted from  paganism — he  mentions  that  thrice  he  had  ex- 
perienced shipwreck.  This  was  written  before  the  occur- 
rence of  the  shipwreck  on  the  shore  of  Malta,  which  is  de- 


510  THE    APOSTLE   PAUL. 

scribed  hy  Luke.  There  is  a  vast,  unrecorded  history  of 
toil,  anxiety,  persecution,  casualty  ;  chapters  of  biography 
irrecoverably  lost,  but  all  the  more  pathetic  for  the  veil  that 
hangs  over  them.  His  life  was  one  long  campaign.  So 
he  himself  felt  at  the  close.  He  could  look  back  and  say 
that  he  had  fought  a  good  fight.  It  is  interesting  to  notice 
that  the  great  idea  of  righteousness,  the  one  idea  that  had 
engaged  his  thoughts  from  childhood,  was  still  before  his 
mind :  "  Henceforth  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of 
righteousness,  which  the  Lord,  the  righteous  Judge,  will 
give  me." 

I  must  gather  up,  in  the  briefest  compass,  a  few  of  the 
lessons  for  our  time,  and  for  all  tinie,  which  are  drawn  from 
the  glimpses  we  have  taken  of  the  character  and  career  of 
the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles. 

He  is  an  eloquent  witness  to  the  supremacy  that  belongs 
to  religion,  in  Christian  teaching,  as  in  the  lives  of  men. 
The  inculcation  of  justice  and  charity  among  men  is  never 
to  be  neglected  ;  but  the  life  of  ethics  is  in  religion.  The 
recovery  of  men  to  God  is  the  prime  end  of  the  Gospel. 
The  preaching  of  Paul  was  a  beseeching  of  men,  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  to  be  reconciled  to  God. 

In  all  Christian  ages,  Paul  is  a  witness  against  ritualism 
— if  by  ritualism  is  meant  a  dependence  upon  external  rites 
and  an  earthly  priesthood.  Imagine  a  ritualist  of  this  de- 
scription thanking  God  that  he  had  baptized  onl}^  Caius  and 
Crispus  and  a  few  other  individuals,  as  Paul  says  of  the 
church  at  Corinth,  with  which  he  stood  in  such  intimate  re- 
lations !  At  the  Reformation,  it  was  the  voice  of  Paul  that 
called  men  away  from  human  mediators  to  Christ,  and  broke 
up  the  reign  of  the  mediaeval  system  of  religion.  As  long 
as  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  remains,  it  will  be  impossible 
for  Judaizing  Christianity  permanently  to  triumph  in  the 
church. 


THE   APOSTLE   PAUL.  511 

How  is  Christ  exalted  when  we  look  at  tlie  greatness  of 
Paul  and  the  greatness  of  his  influence  !  Luther  said  that 
the  spiritual  miracles  were  the  greatest.  Paul,  in  all  that 
constitutes  the  excellence  of  his  character  and  influence,  was, 
as  he  himself  felt  in  his  inmost  soul,  only  one  effect  of  Christ. 
The  splendor  of  the  planet  is  not  its  own,  but  is  derived 
from  the  sun  round  which  it  revolves.  In  this  dependent 
relation  Paul  consciously  stood  to  Christ.  "When  we  con- 
template such  a  disciple,  are  not  the  power  and  rank  of  the 
Master  felt  to  be  altogether  unique?  Is  there  not  some 
other,  transcendent  distinction  between  Paul  and  Christ  be- 
sides that  of  the  degree  of  moral  excellence  that  belonged  to 
them  respectively  ?  The  love  of  Christ  to  him  was  the  one 
great  consolation  and  joy,  from  which  no  event,  and  no 
power,  human  or  superhuman,  could  separate  him.  There 
is  something  in  the  bare  relation  of  this  disciple  to  his  Lord, 
apart  from  all  specific  declarations,  which  impresses  us  with 
the  conviction  that  Christ,  in  the  apostle's  view,  was  more 
than  a  morally  perfect  man.  He  stands  forth  as  the  divine 
author  of  a  new  spiritual  creation. 

The  best  fruit  that  we  can  gather  from  a  view  of  the  life 
of  Paul  is  a  rebuke  for  the  languid  spirit  that  belongs  to  our 
service  of  the  Master,  and  a  spur  to  a  more  unselfish,  earnest, 
courageous  performance  of  whatever  work  he  has  given  us 
to  do.  The  most  effectual  defence  of  the  Christian  cause  is 
not  reasoning,  which  ingenious  men  may  contrive  to  parry, 
but  the  irresistible  argument  of  a  holy  life,  before  which 
infidelity  stands  abashed. 


512  THE  FOUR  gospels: 


THE  FOUR  GOSPELS  :  A  REVIEW  OF  SUPERNATU- 
RAL  RELIGION.* 

The  anonymolis  work  entitled  Swpernatural  Religion 
is  an  elaborate  attack  upon  the  validity  of  the  evidences  and 
the  authenticity  of  the  documents  of  the  Christian  religion. 
The  morality  of  the  New  Testament  is  alone  possessed  of 
value,  in  the  judgment  of  the  writer  ;  and  this  morality  is 
not  helped,  but  weakened,  in  its  influence  by  the  religious 
doctrine  connected  with  it.f  By  "morality"  he  under- 
stands love  to  God  and  man,  although  he  implies  that  the 
personality  of  God  is  an  anthropomoi*phic  conception.:]:  He 
reserves,  however,  the  full  exposition  of  his  theoretical  sys- 
tem, which  is  to  supersede  revelation,  for  another  work,  to 
be  issued  hereafter.  Nearly  one-half  of  the  first  volume 
(pp.  1-214)  is  taken  up  with  a  discussion  of  the  subject  of 
miracles,  in  which  their  incredibility  is  advocated,  and  a 
polemical  review  is  presented  of  the  arguments  of  Newman, 
Trench,  and  especially  of  Mozley.  The  remainder  of  the 
first  volume  and  the  whole  of  the  second  are  devoted  to  a 
critical  examination  of  the  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of 
the  synoptic  Gospels  and  of  the  Gospel  of  John.  In  this, 
by  far  the  most  important,  portion  of  the  work,  the  early 
ecclesiastical  writers  are  subjected  to  an  extended  scrutiny. 
The  author  is  conversant  with  the  modem  critical  discussions 
in  Germany.  He  is  very  copious  in  his  marginal  references 
to  books,  even  taking  pains  to  point  out  volume  and  page  of 

*  From  The  Independent^  in  November  and  December,  1874.  The  title 
of  the  work  reviewed  is  :  Supernatural  Religion.  An  Inquiry  into  the 
Reality  of  Divine  Revelation.  In  two  vols.  London  :  Longmans,  Green 
&Co.     1874. 

t  Vol.  ii.,  p.  483.  X  Vol.  i.,  p.  72. 


A   REVIEW   OF    SUPEENATURAL   RELIGION.  613 

the  well-known  manuals  on  the  Introduction  to  the  New 
Testament,  and  of  other  books  of  a  like  character,  on  occa- 
sions where  there  is  hardly  need  of  so  much  particularity. 
The  book  is,  for  substance,  a  reproduction  in  English  of  the 
theories  and  arguments  of  the  Tubingen  school  respecting 
early  Christianity  and  the  gospels.  Baur,  Hilgenfeld,  Yolk- 
mar,  Zeller,  Schwegler,  Scholten,  and  their  coadjutors  are 
the  names  with  which  his  foot-notes  are  most  frequently 
sprinkled.  It  is  the  Tubingen  criticism  anglicized.  The 
impression  which  the  book  makes  in  England,  if  we  may 
judge  from  the  tone  of  the  English  press,  indicates  a  want 
of  familiarity  on  the  part  of  the  educated  class  in  that 
country  with  the  course  of  theological  discussion  on  the  con- 
tinent. Journals  like  the  Pall  Mall  Gazette  are  quite  daz- 
zled at  the  erudition,  as  well  as  skill,  of  the  unknown  com- 
batant. In  some  points  this  Anglican  critic  out-herods 
Herod.  For  example,  in  contradiction  to  most  of  the 
scholars  of  the  German  sceptical  school,  he  still  claims  that 
Marcion's  Gospel  is  the  original  of  Luke's,*  and  will  not 
admit — what  even  Hilgenfeld  and  Strauss  concede — that  the 
Clementine  Homilies  quote  from  the  fourth  gospel.  Can- 
did and  discerning  readers  of  works  like  Bleek's  Introduction 
to  the  New  Testament^  Norton's  Genuineness  of  the  Gosj)els, 
and  Westcott's  Canon  of  the  New  Testament — we  purposely 
name  books  which  are  accessible  to  English  readers — will  de- 
tect without  difficulty  the  fallacies  which  swarm  in  this  last 
attack  on  the  gospels.  To  sift  the  work  in  detail  and  to  ex- 
pose the  mass  of  sophistry  which  it  contains  would  require 
a  large  space.  It  is  practicable,  however,  to  point  out  the 
weakness  of  some  of  its  main  positions. 

We  begin  with  the  first  three  Gospels.  We  shall  after- 
wards take  up  the  Gospel  of  John.  It  cannot  be  denied 
(and  this  author  does  not  deny)  that  in  the  latter  half  of 
the  second  century  the  number  of  Gospels  acknowledged  in 

*[  This  opinion  is  retracted  in  the  7th  edition  of  Supernatural  Eeltgion.] 
22* 


514  THE  FOUR  gospels: 

the  church  ever}^where — from  Antioch  and  the  farthest  East 
to  Carthage  and  the  Atlantic  shore  of  Spain — is  limited  to 
the  four  of  our  canon.  Clement,  and  Irenaeus,  and  Tertul- 
lian,  the  Italic  version,  and  probably  the  Sjriac  version,  are 
the  chief  witnesses.  These  Gospels  the  fathers  of  that  time 
affirm  to  have  been  handed  down  from  the  apostolic  age. 
This  anonymous  author  fifty  times  asserts  that  in  the  first 
half  of  the  second  century  numerous  gospels  were  widely 
circulated  in  the  church.  This  statement  is  utterly  unproved 
and  it  is  untrue.  The  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  in  its  different 
recensions,  was  an  altered  Matthew,  and  the  Gospel  of  Mar- 
cion  a  mutilated  Luke.  The  one  was  in  use  among  the 
Ebionites  and  the  other  in  the  Marcionite  sect.  Leaving 
these  out  of  the  accoimt,  the  reiterated  statement  about  the 
wide  circulation  and  acceptance  of  other  gospels  is  without 
foundation.  But,  if  the  writer's  assertion  were  true,  it 
would  puzzle  him  to  give  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  fact 
that  the  four — these  and  no  others — are  found,  in  the  last 
quarter  of  the  second  century,  consentaneously  adopted  by 
the  churches  scattered  over  the  Eoman  Empire,  and  adopted 
without  a  lisp  of  dissent  or  contradiction  among  them. 

Yery  few  of  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of  \hQ  first  half  of 
the  second  century  are  extant.  The  most  important  of  those 
whose  works  remain  is  Justin  Martyr.  About  the  genuine- 
ness of  his  two  apologies  and  of  the  dialogue  with  Trypho 
there  is  no  question.  It  is  natural  that  the  author  of  Su- 
jyernatiiral  Religion  should  exert  himself  to  the  utmost  to 
show  that  Justin's  quotations  are  not,  as  they  have  been 
generally  deemed  to  be,  derived  from  the  gospels  of  the 
canon,  but  from  lost  works.  About  forty  years  ago,  Cred- 
ner,  a  theologian  of  Giessen,  published  his  critical  works  on 
the  New  Testament,  in  which  the  quotations  of  Justin  were 
collected  and  tabulated.  The  judgment  of  this  scholar  was 
not  always  equal  to  his  learning.  He  held  that  the  first 
three  gospels  were  in  the  hands  of  Justin,  and  he  believed 
in  the  Johannine  authorship  of  the  fourth  ;  but  he  attributed 


A   REVIEW    OF    SUPERNATURAL   RELIGION.  515 

exaggerated  influence  to  the  Jewish  gospels — the  "  Gospel 
of  the  Hebrews,"  etc. — and  maintained  that  Justin  drew  at 
least  the  main  portion  of  his  passages  from  them.  The 
Tubingen  doctors  started  with  the  facts  and  data  of  Credner, 
and,  as  one  might  expect,  pushed  his  theory  to  the  extreme 
of  excluding  altogether  the  canonical  gospels  from  the 
knowledge  of  Justin.  The  author  of  Sujpernatural  Religion 
treads  closely  in  their  footsteps.  Justin  ten  times  calls  the 
source  of  his  quotations  the  Memoirs  hy  the  Apostles,  and  five 
times  simply  Memoirs  /  in  one  case  he  speaks  of  them  as 
composed  by  "  the  apostles  and  their  companions,"  *  and 
once  he  explains  that  they  "  are  called  Gospels."  f  In  the 
passage  where  "  the  apostles  and  their  companions  "  are 
mentioned  as  the  authors  of  the  Memoirs  the  connected 
quotation  is  found  in  Luke,  a  circumstance  that  w^ould  ac- 
count for  the  express  reference  to  "  companions"  in  connec- 
tion with  "  apostles."  The  reason  why  the  gospels  are 
called  Memoirs,  without  a  mention  of  the  author's  names,  is 
plain.  Justin  was  writing  for  heathen  readers,  or  for  Jews, 
who  knew  nothing  of  the  evangelists  by  name,  and  would 
not  understand  the  title  "  Gospels."  In  several  places  in  the 
"  Dialogue  with  Trypho,"  who  was  acquainted  with  Chris- 
tianity, Justin  does  use  "  the  Gospel "  in  the  singular  as  a 
designation  for  the  Memoirs.  Seeing  that  later  fathers  in 
the  same  century — as  Irenseus  and  Tertullian — employ  this 
very  term  as  a  name  for  the  four  gospels  collectively,  it  is 
natural  to  suppose  that  Justin  did  the  same.  His  Dialogue 
with  Trypho  was  written  about  a.d.  160,  when  Irenseus  must 
have  been  about  thirty  years  of  age.  The  Memoirs,  what- 
ever they  were,  were  read  along  with  the  prophets,  Justin 
tells  us,  in  the  Christian  assemblies  on  the  Lord's  Day,  in 
city  and  country.  The  author  whom  we  are  reviewing  re- 
peatedly affirms  that  Justin  did  not  consider  the  Memoirs 
inspired  or  authoritative,  that  he  believed  them  solely  on 

♦  Dial,  c.  103.  t  ^'Po'^-  i-»  ^6. 


516  THE  FOUR  gospels: 

account  of  their  accordance  with  prophecy,  and  that  he  was 
a  Judaizer,  hostile  to  Paul — statements  contrary  to  the 
truth,  but  not  of  sufficient  relevancy  to  require  here  a 
refutation.  In  the  first  place,  this  author  expresses  the  re- 
markable opinion  that  Justin  by  his  Memoirs  designates  a 
single  gospel — one  work.  Then  this  one  book  must  have 
had  "  the  apostles  and  their  companions  "  for  its  authors  ! 
Against  this  odd  supposition,  stands  not  only  the  natural 
interpretation  of  Justin's  language  in  all  of  his  references  to 
the  Memoirs,  but  also  his  express  declaration  that  they  "  are 
called  gospels."  But  this  last  clause,  without  a  particle  of 
manuscript  evidence,  is  thrown  out  of  the  text  and  pro- 
nounced spurious !  That  the  author  is  not  absolutely  alone 
in  this  emendation  makes  it  none  the  less  an  arbitrary  con- 
jecture. When  Justin  speaks  of  the  Memoirs  as  \^Titten  by 
"  the  apostles  and  their  companions "  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  he  has  in  mind  the  works  which  Tertullian 
describes  in  just  the  same  manner.  When  he  refers  to  a 
circumstance  about  Peter  as  recorded  in  his  Memoirs  it  is 
right  to  conclude  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  which  Papias  and 
the  ancient  church  connected  with  Peter  as  having  been 
written  by  his  disciple,  is  the  book  referred  to.*  Secondly, 
the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  tries  to  get  over  the 
difficulty  arising  from  the  liturgical  use  of  the  MemoirSyhj 
pretending  that  many  other  works  were  read  in  like  manner. 
A  few  homiletic  writings — as  the  EjpistU  of  Clement,  and 
the  Shejpherd  of  Ilermas — were  not  unfi-equently  read  in 
the  early  churches.  But,  with  the  exception  of  the  Gos- 
pel of  the  Hebrews  in  the  Ebionitic  communities,  there  is 
no  proof  that  other  gospels  than  the  four  had  this  public 
recognition.  Justin  must  have  been  acquainted  with  the 
churches  of  Italy  and  Asia.  How  did  the  unknown  gospel, 
which  corresponded  so  closely  to  the  canonical  narratives,  and 

*  In  Dial.^  c.  106.  In  the  same  sentence,  Justin  refers  to  Boanerges, 
as  the  name  given  to  John  and  James,  a  fact  mentioned  by  Mark  alone 
of  the  Evangelists. 


A   REVIEW   OF  SUPERNATURAL  RELIGION.  517 

which  it  is  pretended  that  Justin  quotes  from,  get  crowded 
out  of  the  services  on  Sunday  and  get  supplanted  by  others, 
and  all  within  the  space  of  a  few  years,  since  Irenseus  must 
have  been  a  man  grown,  when  Justin  wrote  his  Dialogue  ? 
Justin  himself  dwells  on  the  multitude  of  Christians  in  his 
time,  who  were  scattered  over  the  whole  world,  among  all 
nations,  whether  nomadic  or  civilized.*  How  could  the  gos- 
pels which  existed  in  multiplied  copies,  and  which  they  read 
in  their  public  worship,  be  suddenly  dropped,  and  exchanged 
for  others,  and  no  notice  be  left  of  the  fact  of  such  a  revolu- 
tion  or  of  the  process  by  which  it  was  effected  ? 

In  the  very  great  number  of  references  to  the  gospel 
narrative  in  Justin  there  is  a  general  and  striking  coinci- 
dence with  our  evangelists.  "We  shall  here  speak  of  the 
first  three  gospels,  reserving  the  consideration  of  John  for 
a  later  page.  We  have  in  Justin  no  myths  respecting 
Mary  and  the  infancy  of  Jesus,  such  as  fill  the  apocryphal 
narratives.  Why  attribute  his  references  to  any  other 
source  than  to  the  gospels  of  the  canon  ?  First,  our  author 
brings  forward  the  fact  that  the  quotations  are  not  verbally 
accurate.  But  {a)  this  is  no  peculiarity  of  Justin.  The 
other  fathers,  who  are  known  to  have  received  the  four 
alone,  quote  from  memory  and  exhibit  the  same  sort  of  in- 
accuracy. One  of  the  most  striking  instances  of  this  inex- 
act method  of  quotation  is  in  the  case  of  Matt.  xi.  27  (Luke  x. 
22),  on  which  our  author  builds  much.  But  the  same  devia- 
tions from  the  canonical  text  are  found  in  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, Origen,  and  Irenseus ;  so  that  his  argument  is  good  for 
nothing.  To  paraphrase  a  passage,  instead  of  giving  it  ver- 
hathn  /  to  combine  the  language  of  two  evangelists  upon  the 
same  matter ;  to  misrecoUect  the  phraseology  of  a  passage 
and  to  quote  it  more  than  once  in  the  same  inexact  form, 
are  so  natural,  so  explicable  on  known  principles  of  mental 
action,  and  so  common,  even  at  the  present  day,  that  phe- 

*  Dial,  c.  117. 


518  THE  FOUR   GOSPELS  *. 

nomena  of  this  sort,  occurring  at  a  time  when  the  gospels 
were  comparatively  new  and  were  read  only  in  manuscripts, 
should  occasion  no  surprise.  It  is  true  that  the  author  be- 
fore us  stigmatizes  this  method  of  accounting  for  Justin's  in- 
accurate quotations,  as  "  elastic,"  "  convenient,"  "  arbitrary," 
etc.  But  such  epithets  will  affect  no  one  who  reflects  on 
the  subject  and  who  is  acquainted  with  the  ordinary  practice 
of  the  authors  of  antiquity,  {h)  We  find  that  Justin  quotes 
other  writers  with  quite  as  much  freedom  as  to  the  verbal 
form.  He  quotes  the  Septuagint  with  similar  departures 
from  the  text.  He  quotes  from  Plato,  especially  in  one 
striking  passage  where  we  might  look  for  a  literal  citation, 
with  a  deviation  from  the  original  as  marked  as  that  of  most 
of  his  gospel  quotations.'^  Did  he  read  a  different  Plato, 
an  apocryphal  Timcms  f  Is  the  supposition  that  he  read 
the  TimcBus  that  we  read,  "  elastic,"  "  arbitrary,"  the  sub- 
terfuge of  "  Apologists  "  ?  He  quotes  from  Isaiah,  doubt- 
less by  a  mistake,  a  passage  not  to  be  found  in  the  prophet.f 
Does  this  prove  that  he  had  another  Isaiah  or  was  unac- 
quainted with  the  canonical  books  of  tlie  Old  Testament  ? 
Has  the  canonical  Isaiah  supplanted  an  earlier  Isaiah  which 
Justin  used  ?  Lastly  (<?),  Justin  differs  from  himself.  He 
brings  forward  in  repeated  instances  passages  which  he 
gives  in  different  places  in  a  varying  form.  In  the  passage 
to  which  we  have  adverted  (Matt.  xi.  27)  our  author  finds 
in  Justin's  use  of  the  aorist  for  the  present  ("knew  "for 
"  knoweth ")  proof  of  the  use  of  a  heretical  gospel.  But 
Justin  himself  cites  the  passage,  giving  the  verb  in  the 
present.:j:  This  comparison  of  Justin  with  himself  proves 
conclusively  that  he  was  in  the  habit  of  quoting  from 
memory  and  frequently  without  taking  pains  to  cite  the 
text  verbatim.  If  the  position  of  the  author  of  Super- 
natural Religion  is  to  stand,  he  must  show  that  Justin's 
quotations  deviate  from  our  gospels  in  such  a  way  as  to  ac- 

*  A'poL  ii.,  10.  t  Dial,,  a  138.  %  Dial,  c.  100. 


A    REVIEW    OF    SUPERNATURAL   RELIGION.  519 

cord  systematically  with  the  Jewish  gospel,  to  which  he  at- 
tributes them.  This,  secondly,  he  attempts  to  do.  As- 
suming that  the  Clementine  Homilies  quote  from  such  a 
gospel,  he  would  make  out  a  verbal  correspondence  be- 
tween certain  of  Justin's  passages  and  those  found  in  that 
work.  In  this  effort  he  follows  Credner.  The  attempt  is 
made  with  reference  only  to  a  very  few  of  the  numerous 
references  to  the  gospel  narrative  in  the  Homilies,  and  the 
result  of  the  comparison  is  far  from  justifying  the  inference 
of  the  author.  For  example,  both  Justin  and  the  Homilies 
ascribe  to  the  Lord  the  precept,  "  Let  your  yea  be  yea,  and 
your  nay,  nay."  But  the  canonical  epistle  of  James  gives 
the  precept  in  the  same  form,  and  so  does  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, who  regarded  the  four  gospels  as  alone  authoritative. 
The  ecclesiastical  writers  may  have  taken  the  form  of  the 
precept  from  James — the  form  in  which  it  came  orally  to 
this  Apostle.  The  instances  of  verbal  coincidence — so  far 
as  such  exist  between  Justin's  references  and  those  of  the 
Clementines — are  quite  inadequate  to  prove  a  common 
source  distinct  from  the  canonical  gospels.  When  Justin's 
quotations  are  compared  generally  with  those  of  the  Homi- 
lies, it  is  found  that,  so  far  from  tallying  with  them,  they 
differ  in  phraseology  as  widely  as  do  Justin's  from  the  text 
of  our  evangelists.  The  third  main  argument  in  Supernat- 
ural Religion^  on  the  topic  before  us,  is  founded  on  the  ref- 
erences in  Justin  to  facts  and  sayings  not  contained  in  our 
Gospels.  These  additions  are  frequently  alleged  to  be  nume- 
rous and  important.  This  is  not  true.  In  the  multitude 
of  references  to  Christ's  teaching,  there  are  only  two  say- 
ings ascribed  to  him  which  are  extra-canonical.  One  is  the 
prediction  that  heresies  and  divisions  would  break  out ;  the 
other  is — "  In  whatsoever  things  I  apprehend  you,  in  these 
will  I  judge  you."  The  first  of  these  (resembling  the  pas- 
sage in  1  Cor.  xi.  18  seq.),  is  attributed  to  Jesus  by  Clement 
of  Alexandria  and  Lactantius,  The  second  is  also  in  Clem- 
ent, as  well  as  in  later  writers.     Justin  speaks  of  Jesus  as 


520  THE  FOUR  gospels: 

having  been  born  in  a  cave — a  circumstance  referred  to  also 
by  Origen  and  in  many  of  the  later  fathers,  and  unquestion- 
ably an  early  tradition.  But  it  was  in  a  manger — Justin 
tells  us  in  the  same  passage — that  Christ  was  born  ;  the  cave 
contained  a  manger.  Justin  says  that  when  Jesus  entered 
the  water  to  be  baptized  a  fire  was  kindled  in  the  Jordan. 
The  same  thing  is  found  in  several  apocryphal  books.  In 
the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  the  fire  is  said  to  have  appeared 
when  he  came  up  from  the  water.  Here  we  have  probably 
an  early  tradition,  which  became  incorporated  in  more  than 
one  writer.  Justin  represents  the  voice  from  Heaven  at 
the  baptism  as  saying :  "  Thou  art  my  Son.  This  day  I  have 
begotten  thee."  We  learn  from  Augustine  that  this  read- 
ing of  the  passage  was  current  in  his  day.  It  is  found  in 
the  old  Latin  version.  It  occurs  in  the  Cambridge  manu- 
script D.  It  is  met  with  in  Clement  of  Alexandi;ia,  and 
other  later  authors.  Justin  speaks  of  Jesus  as  a  carpenter, 
making  plows  and  yokes — a  statement  introduced  into  the 
apocryphal  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  and  the  Gospel  of  Thomas. 
Justin  says  that  the  people  considered  his  miracles  a  magic 
phantasy  and  called  him  a  magician.  This  may  have  been 
a  free  paraphrase  of  the  statements  in  Matthew  ix.  34 ; 
xii.  24 ;  Mark  iii.  22  ;  Luke  xi.  15 ;  but  it  is  found  in 
Origen,  the  Recognitions  of  Pseudo-Clement,  and  else- 
where. He  also  says  that  the  ass  on  which  he  rode  was  tied 
to  a  vine — a  circumstance  which  probably  connected  itself 
early  in  the  tradition  with  the  prophecy  in  Genesis  xlix.  10, 
with  which  Justin  associates  it.*  This  brief  list  comprises 
everything  which  can  fairly  be  called  a  supplement  to  the 
contents  of  the  four  Gospels  in  the  entire  mass  of  Justin's 
references ;  and,  as  this  writer  says  Justin's  works  "  teem 
with  these  quotations."  f  They  are  here  brought  together, 
be  it  observed,  from  all  his  works.  In  the  places  where 
they  occur,  they  would  hardly  attract  an  ordinary  reader's 
attention.     It  is  not  impossible  that  Justin  may  have  been 

♦i>»aZ.,  c.  63.  ,  tVol.  i.,p.  341. 


A   REVIEW    OF    ST7PERNATUEAL   RELIGION.  521 

acquainted  with  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews — the  Ebionitic 
Matthew ;  and  that  reminiscences  of  his  reading  of  that 
book  may  have  mingled  themselves  with  his  extracts  from 
the  canonical  four.  Certain  sayings  of  Jesus  and  circum- 
stances in  his  life  which  are  not  recorded  by  the  Evangel- 
ists formed  a  part  of  the  early  tradition.  They  found  their 
way  into  books.  Whether  Justin  drew  these  few  things 
from  such  books  or  from  an  oral  source — from  traditional 
report — it  is  difficult  to  decide.  But  there  is  one  point  of 
capital  importance :  not  one  of  these  extra-canonical  state- 
ments is  referred  hy  him  to  the  Memoirs.  The  author  of 
Supernatural  Religion  labors  hard  to  prove  the  contrary, 
but  he  labors  in  vain.  In  the  account  of  the  baptism  of 
Jesus  it  is  only  what  our  gospels  contain  that  is  referred  by 
Justin  to  the  Memoirs.  To  infer  that  he  means  to  attribute 
his  whole  narrative  of  this  event  to  them  is  without  warrant. 
If  this  inference  were  just,  it  would  only  authoi-ize  us  to  con- 
clude that  Justin's  memory  in  this  instance,  as  in  the  case  of  va- 
rious references  by  him  to  the  Old  Testament,  was  imperfect. 

That  Justin  drew  the  bulk  of  his  references  to  the  gos- 
pels from  the  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  of  our  canon,  is 
one  of  the  best-established  results  of  impartial  critical  and 
historical  research.  That  he  made  use  of  John's  Gospel  is, 
also,  capable  of  satisfactory  proof. 

If  the  notions  of  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  as 
to  the  source  of  Justin's  quotations  were  tenable  we  should 
have  to  conclude  that  there  was  a  gospel  preceding  the  four 
of  the  canon,  which  contained  a  great  part  of  the  contents  of 
all  of  them  ;  that  the  four  were  written  on  the  basis  of  it,  each 
drawing  off  a  portion  of  the  matter ;  that  this  comprehensive 
gospel  was  dropped  by  the  churches  after  the  middle  of  the 
second  century,  and  the  four  taken  up  in  the  room  of  it.* 

*  [The  improbabilities  (amounting  to  absurdity)  of  this  theory  as  to 
the  contents  of  The  Goapel  to  the  Hebrews,  and  its  relation  to  the  canoni- 
cal gospels,  are  well  set  forth  in  The  Lost  Oospd  and  its  Contents^  by  the 
Eev.  M.  F.  Sadler,  M.A.  (London,  187G).] 


522  THE   FOUK   GOSPELS  : 

As  we  approach  the  close  of  the  second  century  we  find 
that  the  churches  everywhere,  without  conciiiar  action  or 
the  influence  of  prominent  individuals,  have  settled  in  com- 
mon upon  the  four  gospels  as  possessed  of  exclusive  author- 
ity. This  very  remarkable  fact  is  fully  attested,  as  we  have 
remarked,  by  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  and  by  the  early 
versions.  The  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  repeatedly 
alludes  to  the  use  of  other  gospels  by  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria ;  but  -Clement  himself,  referring  to  an  alleged  conversa- 
tion of  Salome  and  Jesus,  says :  "  We  have  not  this  saying 
in  the  four  gosjpels  which  have  been  handed  down  to  us,  but 
in  that  according  to  the  Egyptians."  *  He  distinguishes  the 
four  as  authoritative.  We  must  offer  a  brief  comment  here 
upon  the  way  in  which  the  Muratorian  Canon  is  treated  in 
the  work  which  we  are  criticising.  This  interesting  frag- 
ment, as  is  well  known,  begins  with  a  broken  sentence,  which 
may  be  naturally  interpreted  as  relating  to  Mark's  Gospel. 
The  MS.  then  proceeds  to  speak  of  the  "  tlikd  book  of  the 
Gospel  according  to  Luke "  ;  then  of  the  Gospel  of  John, 
which  is  called  the  fourth;  and  then  of  the  Acts.  That 
Matthew  and  Mark  preceded  this  notice  of  Luke  in  the  ms., 
no  person  can  reasonably  doubt.  Yet  this  author  is  bold 
enough  to  say  that  there  is  no  evidence  of  it  "  stronger  than 
a  mere  conjecture."  The  ms.  says  of  the  Pastor  of  Her- 
nias: "Ilermas,  in  truth,  composed  the  Pastor  ^'e/'y  recently 
in  our  times  in  the  City  of  Rome,  the  Bishop  Pius,  his  broth- 
er, sitting  in  the  chair  of  the  Church  of  the  City  of  Rome." 
The  latest  possible  date  of  the  episcopate  of  Pius  is  142-157 ; 
yet  our  author  falls  back  upon  a  subterfuge  of  Yolkmar,  who 
suggested  that  the  writer  of  the  canon  speaks  of  the  date  of 
Hermas  comparatively,  in  relation  to  that  of  the  apostolic 
writings — a  suggestion  having  no  support  from  the  language 
of  the  document — and  forthwith  brings  down  its  date  "  to  a 
late  period  of  the  third  century."     He  even  observes,  with 

•  Str&ni,,  iil,  13. 


A    REVIEW   OF    SUPEKNATrKAL  RELIGION.  523 

some  naivete,  that  if  it  can  be  supposed  tliat  the  phrase  was 
used  thirtj  or  forty  years  after  the  time  of  Pius,  "  so  much 
license  is  taken  that  there  is  absolutely  no  reason  why  a  still 
greater  interval  may  not  be  allowed."  "  Very  recently,"  "  in 
our  times  " — keep  us,  at  least,  within  the  limit  of  the  second 
century.  Be  it  observ^ed  that  this  same  author,  who  resorts 
to  such  flimsy  arguments  in  order  to  bring  the  Muratorian 
MS.  down  into  the  third  century,  nevertheless  treats  the  fact 
that  Matthew  and  Mark  were  referred  to  in  it,  as  "  a  mere 
conjecture  ! " 

This  author  discloses  a  partisan  spirit  in  what  he  says  of 
Marcion's  Gospel,  which,  being  an  altered,  mutilated  Luke, 
proves  the  currency  of  the  canonical  third  gospel  in  the  first 
half  of  the  second  century.  Kitschl  and  some  others  of  the 
Tubingen  school,  contrary  to  the  declaration  of  the  fathers 
— Irengeus,  Tertullian,  Epiphanius — and  to  the  well-nigh  uni- 
versal opinion,  had  defended  the  proposition  tiiat  Marcion's 
Gospel  was  first  and  that  Luke's  grew  out  of  it.  This  opin- 
ion was  confuted  by  Yolkmar,  of  the  same  school,  who  was 
supported  by  Hilgenfeld  and  Zeller ;  and  these  were  joined 
by  Baur  and  by  Ritschl,  who  retracted  their  former  opin- 
ions. The  priority  of  our  Luke  in  general  was  thus  con- 
ceded by  the  sceptical  school  which  had  impugned  it.  The 
author  of  Sujoernatural  Heligion  is  adventurous  enough  to 
take  up  "  the  lost  cause."  He  prepares  the  way  by  sweep- 
ing remarks  upon  the  utterly  uncritical  habit  of  the  fathers, 
and  the  worthlessness  of  their  testimony.  Especially  does 
he  seek  to  heap  contempt  upon  Tertullian,  the  most  formid- 
able witness  in  the  case,  who,  though  a  vehement  controver- 
sialist (like  Martin  Luther),  had  taken  great  pains  to  inform 
himself  about  Marcion.  Almost  the  only  thing  of  the  na- 
ture of  serious  argument  in  connection  with  this  indiscrim- 
inate and,  therefore,  unjust  diatribe  against  the  fathers,  is 
the  attempt  to  show  that  Marcion  admitted  into  his  Gospel 
various  things  inconsistent  with  his  alleged  design  to  exclude 
what  gave  sanction  to  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Jewish 


524  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS  : 

system.  Whoever  will  carefully  consider  the  omitted  pas- 
sages— as  given  by  De  Wette  and  Bleek — will  see  that  they 
fully  sustain  the  allegation  of  the  church  writers  as  to  the 
intent  of  Marcion.  That  he  did  not  use  the  pruning-knife 
with  absolute  consistency  and  thoroughness,  that  in  some 
cases  he  relied  upon  strained  and  perverse  interpretations,  as 
a  means  of  getting  -rid  of  obnoxious  statements,  does  not 
militate  against  the  truth  of  this  allegation.  In  the  case  of 
one  of  Marcion's  characteristic  alterations,  our  author  de- 
fends Marcion's  reading,  in  the  face  of  decisive  evidence. 
The  passage  is  Luke  xvi.  17.  Marcion  rejected  all  of  the 
apostles  but  Paul,  and,  hence,  cast  away  the  gospels  with 
which  they  were  connected.  But  Irenreus  and  Tertullian 
both  distinctly  imply  that  he  was  acquainted  with  the  other 
canonical  gospels.  Marcion  expunged,  also,  from  the  Epis- 
tles of  Paul  passages  opposed  to  his  own  type  of  doctrine. 
This  is  established,  although  in  some  cases  his  variations 
were  doubtless  due  to  diverse  readings  of  the  text.  The 
Marcionites,  after  their  master,  introduced  further  altera- 
tions into  the  documents  which  they  received.  Besides  the 
peculiarity  of  Marcion's  changes,  it  is  on  other  grounds  irra- 
tional to  assign  the  priority  to  his  gospel.  Did  the  church 
in  the  middle  of  the  second  century  take  a  gospel  from  the 
hands  of  a  heretical  sect  and  amplify  it  ?  This  is  one  mar- 
velous hypothesis  which  has  not  wanted  supporters.  The 
absurdity  of  it  the  author  before  us  appears  to  recognize. 
He  broaches  the  theory  that  Marcion's  Gospel  was  the  orig- 
inal Luke,  and  had  remained  in  use  among  the  churches  of 
Pontus  after  it  had  been  supplanted  elsewhere  by  our  third 
gospel.  He  would  have  us  believe  that  Marcion's  Gospel 
had  been  altered  and  enlarged,  and  in  this  new  form  had 
been  spread  abroad ;  while  the  first  form,  the  germ  of  it, 
still  remained  among  the  orthodox  Christians  of  Pontus, 
where  Marcion  was  brought  up.  It  is  fatal  to  this  extraor- 
dinary hypothesis  that  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence, 
from  any  quarter,  that  Marcion's  Gospel  was  ever  used  by 


A   REVIEW    OF  SUPEENATUEAL   RELIGION.  525 

any  but  Marcionites.  There  is  no  proof  whatever  that  Mar- 
cion,  his  opponents,  or  his  followers  pretended  that  his  gos- 
pel was  in  use  among  the  orthodox  any wliere,  either  before 
or  after  his  time.  Marcion's  Gospel  began  with  the  third 
chapter  of  our  Luke.  The  prologue  of  Luke — the  first 
verses — bears  every  mark  of  being  a  part  of  the  original 
work,  and  not  a  forged  addition  by  some  later  hand.  The 
Gospel  has  throughout  the  same  uniform  characteristics  of 
style  and  language.     It  is  by  one  and  the  same  writer.* 

The  author  of  Sxijpernatural  Religion  is  not  less  sophisti- 
cal in  his  treatment  of  the  testimony  of  Papias.  He  is  very 
free  in  imputing  prejudice  and  unfairness  to  Westcott,  Tisch- 
endorf ,  and  to  "  Apologists  "  generally  ;  but  he  himself  fur- 
nishes not  a  few  instances  of  special  pleading  which  are 
not  worthy  of  a  scholar.  "  It  is  clear,"  he  says,  "  that,  even 
if  Papias  knew  any  of  our  gospels,  he  attached  little  or  no 
value  to  them."  f  As  if  Papias  took  pains  to  give  an  ac- 
count of  the  origin  of  gospels  and  of  the  connection  of  apos- 
tles with  them,  but  attached  no  value  to  these  works  !  Pa- 
pias says  that  Mark,  in  writing  down  Peter's  accounts  of 
Christ's  deeds  and  words,  did  not  observe  a  chronological 
order.  On  the  ground  of  the  statement,  which,  at  best  may 
have  been  a  merely  subjective  judgment  of  Papias — natural, 
perhaps,  in  view  of  the  abrupt  beginning  and  abbreviated 
character  of  the  second  Gospel — it  is  concluded  that  Papias 
refers  to  some  other  book  than  onr  Mark.  Neither  Irenseus, 
Eusebius,  or  any  other  of  the  ancient  writers,  who  had  the 
work  of  Papias  in  their  hands,  dreamed  of  his  referring  to 
any  other  Mark  than  the  canonical  Gospel.  We  are  told 
again,  of  course,  that  these  authors  were  uncritical,  imbecile : 
yet  they  were  critical  enough  to  make  inquiries  on  this  very 
subject,  and  to  examine  the  statements  of  Papias.     These 

*  [As  stated  above,  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion,  in  his  last 
edition,  retracts  the  opinion  that  Marcion's  Gospel  preceded  the  canonical 
Luke.  ] 

f  Vol.  ii. ,  p.  445. 


526  THE  FOUR   GOSPELS  : 

wholesale  charges  against  the  fathers  are  extremely  unjust, 
and  are  only  serviceable  to  help  an  advocate  bolster  up  a 
weak  cause.  When  it  serves  his  turn,  this  same  w^riter  is 
ready  enough  to  rely  on  them.  Hilgenfeld  maintained  that 
our  Mark  has  been  manipulated  by  a  devotee  of  the  Petrine 
interest.  The  author  before  us  thinks  it  not  Petrine  enough 
to  suit  the  account  of  Papias.  A  candid  student  will  find 
little  weight  in  the  arguments  of  either  of  these  critics  on 
this  point.  There  is  nothing  in  the  gospel,  and  nothing 
omitted  from  it,  which  can  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  a  dis- 
ciple of  Peter  was  not  its  author.  But  if  SujpeTnatural  Re- 
ligion is  correct  in  holding  that  Papias  referred  here  to  the 
apocryphal  book  called  The  Preaching  of  Peter ^  it  is  an  in- 
teresting question  how  this  book  became  universally  sup- 
planted and  superseded  by  our  second  Gospel,  without  any 
notice,  too,  of  the  fact,  or  any  traces  of  a  controversy.  We 
are  not  favored  with  any  solution  of  this  tough  problem. 
"  It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  account "  for  this  disappear- 
ance of  one  book,  and  adoption  of  another  in  its  room,  says 
our  author ;  and  then  he  pours  out  his  customary  assertions 
about  the  uncritical  character  of  the  fathers.  This  is  sim- 
ply to  throw  dust  in  the  eyes  of  his  readers.  There  are  cu- 
rious inconsistencies  in  this  author's  comments  upon  the  ref- 
erence of  Papias  to  Matthew.  He  takes  the  term  Logia  in 
the  restricted  sense,  to  denote  "  the  discourses  "  of  the  Lord. 
Hence  he  infers  that  the  first  Gospel,  in  its  present  form, 
was  not  known  to  Papias — a  quite  illegitimate  inference, 
since  Papias,  in  referring  to  the  translation  which  every  one 
made  as  he  could  from  the  Aramaic  original,  speaks  in  the 
aorist  tense.  The  implication  is,  that  the  necessity  for  trans- 
lating no  longer  existed.  The  main  point  of  our  author's 
argumentation  is  that,  if  there  was  not  a  Hebrew  (Aramaic) 
original,  we  have  no  testimony  to  the  fact  of  the  existence 
of  a  Gospel  by  Matthew.  Various  writers — including  even 
Guizot — have  asserted  that  Calvin  first  published  his  Insti- 
tutes in  French.     The  fact  is  that  the  first  publication  of 


A   REVIEW    OF    SUPEENATDEAL  RELIGION.  627 

that  work  was  in  Latin.  Then,  by  parallel  reasoning,  as  re- 
gards the  testimony  of  all  these  writers,  we  have  no  proof  at 
all  that  Calvin  ever  wrote  or  published  the  Institutes,  But 
the  author  of  Swpernatural  Religion  appeals  to  the  state- 
ment of  Pantaenus,  Irenseus,  Eusebius,  and  the  fathers  gen- 
erally, in  favor  of  a  Hebrew  original  of  Matthew.  Xow  all 
of  these  fathers  speak  of  the  entire  Gospel ;  so  that,  by  par- 
ity of  reasoning,  again,  if  their  testimony  is  good  for  any- 
thing, it  was  the  whole  Gospel  which  Papias  had.  The 
chronological  position  of  this  "ancient  man"  renders  the 
opposite  opinion  in  the  highest  degree  improbable.  The 
question  whether  the  first  Gospel  is  a  translation  or  not,  is 
decided  differently  by  equally  competent  critics.  Bleek 
plausibly  explains  how  Papias  might  have  been  misled  on 
this  point.  His  testimony  in  general  would  not  be  invali- 
dated by  such  an  error.  The  author  of  Supernatural  Be- 
ligion  contends  w4th  much  positiveness  that  if  the  first  Gos- 
pel is  a  translation  of  a  lost  original,  it  is  destitute  of  author- 
ity. But  here,  as  so  often  elsewhere,  he  falls  into  fallacious, 
extravagant  assertions. 

"We  have  not  the  space  even  to  sum  up  the  evidence  for 
the  antiquity  of  the  first  three  Gospels.  The  unanimous, 
undisputed  acceptance  of  them  by  the  churches  of  the  last 
half  of  the  second  century,  their  coincidence  with  known 
fact  in  a  thousand  archaeological  particulars,  their  eschato- 
logical  passages  (Matt,  xxiv.,  xxv.,  etc.),  their  sobriety  of 
tone,  in  which  they  are  in  marked  contrast  with  apocryphal 
Gospels,  are  among  the  principal  proofs  of  their  early  com- 
position. Peferring  to  a  strange  expression  about  the  mil- 
lenium,  attributed,  on  the  ground  of  tradition,  by  Papias  to 
Jesus,  the  work  before  us  says  that,  if  "  it  be  not  of  a  very 
elevated  character,  it  is  quite  in  the  spirit  of  that  age." 
This  author  would  not  deny  that  it  is  utterly  foreign  to  the 
spirit  of  the  canonical  Gospels.  It  illustrates  what  sort  of 
stuff  they  would  have  contained  had  they  been  composed  at 
the  period  where  he  would  place  them.     We  may  say  one 


528  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS  I 

word  here  upon  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke. 
The  book  of  Acts  refers  back  to  the  third  Gospel.  Both 
profess  to  be  by  the  same  author.  They  are  homogeneous 
in  style.  Both  books  were  written  throughout  by  the  same 
pen.  Tradition  from  the  beginning  ascribed  them  to  Luke. 
At  the  part  of  the  narrative  in  the  Acts  where  Paul  leaves 
Troas  (xvi.  11)  the  writer  first  uses  the  first  person  plural — 
"  we.'^  This  disappears  after  Paul  leaves  Philippi  and  un- 
til his  return.  Then  the  same  form  of  expression  reappears 
(xxi.  1-18 ;  xxvii.  1 ;  xxviii.  17).  It  is  implied,  of  course, 
that  the  writer  became  a  companion  of  Paul.  Since  the 
Acts  is  not  a  conglomerate,  is  not  a  piece  of  patchwork,  but 
is  composed  and  wrought  by  a  single  author,  it  follows  that, 
if  this  author  was  not  an  actual  participant  in  the  events  at 
the  points  referred  to,  we  must  attribute  to  him  a  knavish 
device — a  trick,  too,  of  a  sort  unexampled  in  apocryphal  lit- 
erature. Suppose  these  two  books  to  have  been  written 
by  Luke,  to  whom  the  unanimous  tradition  of  the  ancient 
churches  ascribed  them,  and  the  peculiarities  to  which  we 
have  adverted,  as  well  as  their  whole  structure  and  complex- 
ion, meet  with  a  perfectly  natural  explanation.  But,  if  the 
genuineness  of  Luke  is  established,  doubt  respecting  the  an- 
tiquity of  Matthew  and  Mark  must  disappear. 

The  patristic  evidence  for  the  Gospels  is,  to  use  an  old 
simile,  like  a  bundle  of  fagots.  There  are  single  sticks  in 
the  bundle  which  it  is  almost  impossible  to  break.  Of 
many  of  these  rods,  however,  it  is  true  that  each  can  be 
separately  broken  ;  yet,  when  combined,  they  are  irrefraga- 
ble. There  are  leading  proofs,  and  there  are  corroborative 
proofs.  The  art  of  the  controversialist,  which  the  author  of 
/Supernatural  Beligion  finely  exemplifies,  is  to  isolate  each 
of  the  numerous  items  of  evidence  and  then  attack  it  by  itself. 
Thus,  in  the  case  of  the  Fourth  Gosjpel,  there  are  passages 
in  Ignatius,  in  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  and  in  other  docu- 
ments, which,  taken  in  connection  with  the  general  stream  of 


A   REVIEW   OF   SUPERNATURAL   RELIGION.  529 

evidence,  go  to  prove  the  Johannine  authorship ;  though, 
considered  by  themselves,  thej  are  not  conclusive.  The. 
writer's  arguments  against  the  genuineness  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  are  few  of  them  new,  and  thej  have  been  more  than 
once  confuted.  His  attempt  to  show  that  Papias  was  not 
acquainted  with  the  Fourth  Gospel,  on  account  of  the  silence 
of  Eusebius  on  this  point,  is  utterly  futile,  as  any  one  can 
see  who  will  observe  the  limit  which  Eusebius  proposes  to  ob- 
serve, and  actually  did  observe,  in  his  references  to  quotations 
made  by  the  earlier  writers  from  New  Testament  books. 
References  to  "  acknowledged,"  or  undisputed  books,  among 
which  he  reckons  John's  Gospel,  he  did  not  profess  to  notice.* 
The  efforts  to  show  that  Justin  Martyr  was  not  acquainted 
with  this  gospel  is  one  of  the  points  that  merit  attention. 
This  author  maintains  that  Justin  drew  his  conceptions  of  the 
Logos  mainly  from  Philo.  But  Justin,  although  he  may  have 
been  acquainted  with  Philo's  writings,  does  not  mention  him, 
even  in  the  dialogue  with  the  Jew,  where  the  authority  of 
the  Alexandrian  might  have  helped  him  in  his  argument. 
But  there  is  this  grand  peculiarity  of  Justin  and  the  Chris- 
tian writers,  that  they  dwell  upon  the  incarnation.  It  is 
the  incaimate  Logos  in  whom  they  are  chiefly  interested. 
But  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos  is  something  utterly  for- 
eign to  Alexandrian  Judaism.  The  Logos  is  scarcely  per- 
sonal in  Philo  ;  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos  in  a  man, 
the  life  and  soul  of  the  doctrine  alike  in  John  and  in  Justin, 
the  Alexandrian  speculatist  knows  nothing.  The  substance 
of  the  Christian  conception  of  Christ  was  the  direct  effect  of 
the  impression  which  he  made  upon  the  apostles  and  of  his 
testimony  respecting  himself.  The  Logos  terminology  was 
no  part  of  his  own  teaching;  it  was  the  vehicle  through 
which  John  expressed  his  idea  of  Christ,  thereby  rectifying 
all  other  notions  of  "  the  Word."  Again,  it  is  in  the  highest 
degree  improbable  that  Justin  should  say  as  much  as  he 

♦  Eusebius,  JK  ^.,  iii,,  3, 


530  THE  FOUR  gospels: 

does  of  Christ  as  the  Word  unless  he  depended  for  this  doc- 
' trine  on  some  authoritative  gospel.  A  single  allusion  of 
doubtful  meaning  to  Christ  as  the  Word,  in  the  Apocalypse, 
is  utterly  insufficient  to  account  for  the  phenomena  which 
Justin's  writings  present.  When  we  find  him,  then,  in 
connection  with  remarks  on  the  Logos,  distinctly  referring 
to  the  Memoirs^^  ^  who  can  honestly  doubt  that  it  is  John's 
Gospel  which  is  the  source  of  his  doctrine  %  The  terms  in 
which  he  describes  the  incarnation  differ  in  form,  rather 
than  substance,  from  those  of  John ;  and  our  author's  argu- 
ment in  this  matter  is  a  very  frail  one.  When  we  come  to  sin- 
gle passages,  that  on  regeneration  baffles  every  attempt  to  con- 
nect it  with  any  other  source  than  the  Fourth  Gospel.f  Both 
of  the  verbal  deviations  in  Justin  from  the  text  of  the  Gos- 
pel are  found  in  the  same  passage  as  quoted  by  Irengeus  and  by 
Eusebius,  and  both  of  them  are  easily  explained.  The  substi- 
tution of  "  Ejngdom  of  Heaven  "  for  "  Kingdom  of  God  "  is 
an  inaccuracy  of  frequent  occurrence  in  citing  this  passage. 
In  this  way,  as  Prof.  Abbot  has  pointed  out,  Jeremy  Taylor 
quotes  the  passage.:]:  The  differences  in  the  passage  as  quoted 
in  the  Clementine  Homilies  and  by  Justin  are  as  marked 
as  are  the  points  of  resemblance.  Moreover,  Hilgenf  eld  and 
Yolkmar  concede  that  the  author  of  the  Clementines  quotes 
from  John.  The  endeavor  of  Supernatural  Religion  to 
show  the  contrary — even  in  reference  to  the  story  of  the 
man  born  blind  § — is  a  desperate  attempt  to  disprove  what 
is  patent  to  every  unbiased  scholar.  There  is  no  known 
source  to  which  the  account  of  this  miracle  can  be  referred, 
except  the  Fourth  Gospel.  When  the  concluding  portion  of 
the  Homilies  was  issued  by  Dressel,  containing  unmistakable 
references  fo  John's  Gospel,  the  whole  enterprise  of  tracing 
Justin's  quotation  on  the  new  birth  to  a  lost  gospel  suffered 


*DiaZ.,c.  105.  \Apoli.,Q\. 

X  See  Am.  ed.  of  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  Art.  Jolm,  Gospel  of . 
%Hom.  xix.,22. 


A    REVIEW    OF    SUPERNATURAL   RELIGION.  531 

shipwreck.  In  his  desire  to  weaken  the  force  of  the  proof 
derived  from  the  Clementine  Homilies,  the  author  would 
make  the  date  of  the  work  as  late  as  possible.  But  the 
later  he  makes  it,  the  more  improbable  is  his  hypothesis 
that  these  passages,  which  are  in  the  characteristic  stjle  of 
John,  are  quotations  from  some  other  book. 

We  must  pass  over  the  writer's  effort  to  show  that  Yalen- 
tinus,  Marcion,  and  other  teachers,  heretical  and  orthodox, 
were  not  acquainted  with  the  Fourth  Gospel.  He  is  obliged, 
in  respect  to  Marcion  and  Valentine,  for  example,  to  contra- 
dict, by  an  arbitrary  dictum,  the  explicit  assertions  of  the 
ecclesiastical  writers  who  w^ere  in  a  position  to  know  the 
truth.  All  the  evidence,  external  and  internal,  goes  to  show 
that  the  Fourth  Gospel  preceded  the  Yalentinian  heresy. 
If  it  be  supposed,  as  this  waiter  would  have  us  think,  that 
the  Fourth  Gospel  was  used  not  by  Yalentinus  and  Easilides 
themselves,  but  by  their  disciples  and  followers — by  "  the 
school "  of  Yalentinus  and  by  "  the  school "  of  Basilides — 
what  is  the  result  ?  Why,  we  are  driven  to  the  conclusion 
that  in  the  very  heat  and  ferment  of  the  great  Gnostic  con- 
troversy, this  new  Gospel  appeared,  was  accepted  by  both 
antagonistic  parties  as  an  authority,  was  referred  to  by  each 
and  interpreted  by  each  in  his  own  manner — all  uniting  in 
ascribing  it  to  John !  Is  any  marvel  that  is  narrated  in  the 
Gospel  itself  greater  than  such  a  fact  would  be  ?  A  new 
Gospel,  distinguished  from  the  gospels  already  in  use  by 
striking  peculiarities,  pronouncing  upon  doctrinal  points  of 
the  highest  interest  and  moment  to  the  two  contending  par- 
ties, is  composed  by  some  unknown  writer,  but  is  accepted 
at  once,  without  hesitation,  and  without  suspicion,  by  both  ! 

We  wish  especially  to  call  the  attention  of  our  readers  to 
this  writer's  disposition  of  the  testimony  of  Irenseus.  This 
testimony  is  of  so  convincing  a  character  that  the  only  pos- 
sible mode  of  turning  the  edge  of  it  is  by  an  assault  upon 
the  intelligence  of  the  witness.  Accordingly,  Irenaeus  is 
pronounced  so  wholly  uncritical  as  to  be  absolutely  unworthy 


532  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS  I 

of  confidence.  That  tliis  father  sometimes  errs  we  admit. 
An  example,  and  the  most  striking  example,  is  his  idea 
respecting  the  long  ministry  of  Jesus,  which  he  accepted 
from  others,  of  course  without  a  critical  attention  to  the 
data  afforded  bj  the  Gospels.  He  is  sometimes  fanciful  in 
his  reasoning,  as  are  Augustine  and  most  of  the  patristic 
writers.  IS^evertheless,  he  was  a  man  of  more  than  ordinary 
talentsj  practical,  sober  in  his  judgments,  and  conscientious. 
That  he  was  careless  as  to  accepting  spurious  documents  is 
a  false  accusation.  It  is  one  of  his  own  charges  against  the 
Gnostics  that  they  alter  the  gospels,  and  frame  new  gospels 
for  themselves.  In  short,  he  is  an  unexceptionable  witness 
on  the  question  before  us.  Now,  Irenseus,  in  his  youth,  knew 
Polycarp,  a  pupil  of  John.  He  remembered  how  Polycarp 
discoursed  of  the  Apostle  John.  He  had  also  known  other 
presbyters  in  Asia  Minor  who  had  been  acquainted  with  the 
same  apostle.  Irengeus  gives  the  most  decisive  testimony  to 
the  genuineness  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  So  established  is  he 
in  his  faith  in  the  four  as  the  only  authentic  gospels  that  he 
appeals,  in  a  fanciful  way,  to  cosmical  and  other  analogies 
to  show  that  there  must  be  four  and  only  four.  Strange  to 
say,  this  conceit  is  referred  to  by  sceptical  writers,  including 
the  author  before  us,  to  discredit  Irenseus's  testimony.  If 
Irenseus  had  been  first  led  to  believe  in  the  four  by  the  fact 
of  there  being  four  winds,  and  four  quarters  of  the  globe, 
there  might  be  some  force  in  the  objection.  But  everybody 
who  reads  him  knows  that  the  ground  of  his  faith  in  the 
Four  Gospels  is  the  testimony  of  the  churches  and  of  "  the 
elders."  To  this,  he  explicitly  refers  his  readers ;  and  these 
fanciful  analogies  indicate  not  at  all  the  source,  but  only  the 
strength  and  settled  character  of  his  reliance  upon  the  Four 
Gospels  of  the  Canon  as  the  sole  authentic  sources  of  knowl- 
edge respecting  Jesus.  The  chronological  position  of  Ire- 
naeus,  whose  active  life  covered  the  last  forty  years  of  the 
second  century,  his  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  churches 
in  the  East,  as  well  as  in  the  West,  and  his  separation  by 


A    REVIEW    OF    SUPERNATURAL   RELIGION.  633 

only  a  single  link  from  the  Apostle  John  himself,  give  to  his 
testimony  an  irresistible  weight. 

There  are  several  references  in  the  writings  of  Irenaeus  to 
his  acquaintance  with  Polycarp.  From  the  most  copious  of 
these,  his  letter  to  Florinus,  who  had  joined  the  Yalentini- 
ans,  we  copy  this  extract : 

*'  Those  opinions,  Florinus,  that  I  may  speak  in  mild  terms,  are  not 
of  sound  doctrine  ;  those  opinions  are  not  in  agreement  with  the  church, 
and  involve  those  who  adopt  them  in  the  deepest  impiety  ;  those  opinions 
not  even  the  heretics  outside  of  the  church  have  ever  ventured  to  broach ; 
those  opinions  the  elders  who  were  before  us,  who  were  the  pupils  of  the 
apostles,  did  not  deliver  to  you.  For,  while  I  was  still  a  boy,  I  saw  you 
in  Lower  Asia,  with  Polycarp,  when  you  were  in  a  brilliant  position  in 
the  royal  palace  and  strove  to  approve  yourself  to  him.  For  I  recall  bet- 
ter what  occurred  at  that  time  than  I  do  recent  events,  since  what  we 
learned  in  childhood  being  united  to  the  soul  as  it  grows  up,  becomes  in- 
corporated with  it,  so  that  I  can  even  describe  the  place  in  which  the 
blessed  Polycarp  used  to  sit  and  discourse,  his  goings  out,  too,  and  com- 
ings in,  the  manner  of  his  life  and  the  form  of  his  body,  and  his  discourses 
which  he  used  to  deliver  to  the  people,  and  how  he  spoke  of  his  familiar 
intercourse  with  John  and  with  the  rest  of  those  who  had  heard  the  Lord, 
and  how  he  would  call  to  mind  their  words.  And  whatever  things  he  had 
heard  from  them  respecting  the  Lord,  both  as  to  his  miracles  and  his 
teaching,  just  as  Polycarp  had  received  it  from  the  eye-witnesses  of  the 
Word  of  Life,  he  recounted  it  agreeably  to  the  Scriptures.  These  things, 
through  the  mercy  of  God  which  was  upon  me,  I  diligently  heard  and 
treasured  them  up,  not  on  paper,  but  in  my  heart,  and  I  am  continually, 
by  the  grace  of  God,  revolving  these  things  in  my  mind  ;  and  I  can  bear 
witness  belore  God  that,  if  that  blessed  and  apostolic  elder  had  ever  heard 
any  such  thing,  he  would  have  cried  out  and  stopped  his  ears,  saying,  as 
he  was  wont  to  say  :  '  Good  God  !  unto  what  times  hast  thou  reserved 
me  that  I  should  endure  these  things  ?  '  And  he  would  have  fled  from 
the  very  place  where,  whether  sitting  or  standing,  he  had  heard  such 
words."* 

This  extract  will  enable  the  reader  to  judge  of  the  tone 
and  spirit  of  Irenseus,  and  to  decide  whether  it  is  probable 
that  a  gospel  having  all  the  peculiarities  of  the  fourth,  and 
differing,  as  that  does,  from  the  synoptics,  could  have  been. 

*  Irenaeus  (ed.  Stieren)  i.,  833  seq. 


534  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS  I  * 

invented,  and  silently  palmed  off  on  the  cliurclies  throughout 
the  Roman  empire,  during  the  period  when  Polycarp  was 
in  active  life  and  either  shortly  before  or  shortly  after  the 
personal  intercourse  of  Irenseus  with  him.  The  truth  is, 
that  the  recent  adversaries  of  the  genuineness  of  this  gospel 
have  done  no  sort  of  justice  to  the  external  evidence  in  its 
favor. 

The  examination  of  the  internal  evidence  respecting  the 
authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  in  the  book  before  us,  pre- 
sents few  points  that  are  fresh.  We  must  content  ourselves 
with  noticing  one  of  these.  Says  this  writer :  *  "  The  author 
[of  the  Fourth  Gospel]  shows  in  a  marked  way  that  he  is 
not  a  Jew,  by  making  Caiaphas  and  the  chief  priests  and 
Pharisees  speak  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  the  people  not 
as  6  7ui6<i,  like  the  Synoptics  and  other  New  Testament  writ- 
ings ;  but  as  to  i^vo^,  the  term  always  employed  by  the  Jews 
to  designate  the  Gentiles."  Now  John  uses  the  w^ord  ethnos 
in  only  two  passages — in  xi.  48-52  and  in  xviii.  35.  In  the 
last  case  it  is  uttered  by  Pilate ;  "  Thine  own  nation  and 
the  chief  priests,"  etc.  In  Pilate's  mouth,  surely,  this  word 
might  naturally  be  expected.  In  the  other  passage  (John 
xi.  50)  Caiaphas  uses  both  terms — that  one  man  should  die 
for  the  people  (laos)  ,  and  not  that  the  whole  nation  (ethnos) 
should  perish."  The  latter  term  denotes  the  Jewish  people 
more  in  a  political  relation ;  the  former,  in  a  theocratic  char- 
acter. In  any  event,  it  would  be  natural  for  John  to  use  the 
term  ethnos,  writing,  as  he  was,  for  Gentiles,  at  a  distance 
from  Judea.  But  in  Luke's  Gospel  it  is  twice  used  by  Jews 
of  themselves — cc.  vii.  5,  xxiii.  2  ;  and  in  the  Acts  in  cc, 
xxiv.  17,  xxvi.  4,  xxvii.  19 ;  also  in  Kom.  x.  19.  The 
statement  of  Supernatural  Religion,  which  we  have  quoted 
here,  is  far  from  being  a  solitary  example  of  inexact  asser- 
tion and  weak  reasoning  to  be  met  with  in  this  portion  of 
the  book. 

*  Vol.  a,  410. 


A   EEVIEW    OF    SUPERNATURAL   RELIGION.  535 

This  author  brings  forward  no  definite  theory  of  his  own 
in  relation  to  the  motives  and  design  of  the  writer^ — whoever 
he  was — of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  PI  ere  is  a  history  of  Jesus 
written  from  beginning  to  end  by  one  man  who  earnestly 
believes  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  and  written  in  order  that 
others  might  partake  of  his  faith.  According  to  the  Tubin- 
gen doctors,  he  composed  a  fictitious  biography  of  the  Mas- 
ter, whom  he  loved  and  adored.  Why  did  he  do  this  ?  In 
answer  to  this  question  we  are  told  that  all  his  interest  was 
in  the  metaphysical,  pre-existent  Logos ;  that  the  history  of 
Jesus  had  for  him  personally  no  importance.  It  is  the  manu- 
factured investiture  of  an  idea.  Except  on  this  remarkable 
hypothesis,  the  Tubingen  theory  about  the  Fourth  Gospel  is 
not  even  intelligible,  much  less  plausible.  If  it  be  true, 
then,  that  the  faith  of  the  author  of  the  Gospel  was  ''  a  his- 
torical faith  " — that  is  to  say,  if  his  faith  centered  in  the  in- 
carnate Jesus — living,  teaching,  working  miracles,  dying  and 
rising  from  the  dead — the  whole  foundation  of  the  skeptical 
cause  falls  away.  But  who  that  reads  the  Fourth  Gospel 
can  doubt  for  a  moment  that  the  religious  life  of  the  author 
drew  its  origin  and  its  daily  breath  from  the  historical  mani- 
festation of  Christ  ?  The  opposite  view  can  be  maintained 
only  by  the  most  arbitrary  and  artificial  exegesis.  This  fatal 
weakness  of  the  negative  theo-ry  has  been  often  pointed  out. 
Quite  lately  this  has  been  done,  with  signal  clearness,  by 
Beyschlag.*  This  article  demolishes  the  position  of  Baur, 
by  showing  that  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  no  sucli 
transcendental  dreamer  as  the  negative  school  is  obliged  to 
assume  him  to  be.  He  believed  in  the  divine  character  and 
mission  of  Jesus,  and  in  the  fourth  gospel  he  sets  forth  the 
historical  facts  on  which  his  belief  was  founded. 

Before  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  makes  his 
literary  onset  upon  Kevelation,  he  undertakes  to  prove  the 

*  In  the  SPudien  u.  Kritiken,  Oct.,  1874. 


536  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS  I 

inherent  incredibility  of  all  miracles,  and  in  particular  of 
those  which  the  Gospels  describe.  His  principal  points 
may  be  conveniently  reviewed  under  five  heads  : 

I.  He  contends  that  a  supernatural  occurrence  is  incapa- 
ble of  being  proved.  He  goes  so  far  as  to  say  of  the  sup- 
posed case  of  Paley,  that  the  testimony  of  twelve  observing, 
sober,  disinterested  witnesses,  of  tried  veracity,  to  an  event 
requiring  supernatural  agency  ought  to  be  disbelieved.  He 
reviews  and  undertakes  to  expound  the  reasoning  of  Hume. 
Mr.  J.  S.  Mill,  among  others,  has  clearly  shown  that  Hume's 
argument  has  no  weight  in  disproving  a  miracle,  provided 
there  be  a  Supreme  Being  who  is  able  and  willing  to  bring 
such  an  event  to  pass.  In  other  words,  the  real  battle  wdth 
imbelief  is  on  the  principles  of  natural  theology.  Is  there  a 
God  and  is  Eevelation  antecedently  probable?  If  so, 
Hume's  argument  is  stripped  of  its  force ;  it  has  no  perti- 
nency. Mill  also  points  out  the  obvious  fact  that  the  mira- 
cle is  no  violation  of  the  axiom  that  the  same  causes  pro- 
duce the  same  effects,  since  the  intervention  of  a  new  cause 
is  presupposed.  To  these  considerations,  so  lucidly  set  forth 
by  one  of  the  chiefs  of  the  empirical  school,  the  book  before 
us  offers  no  adequate  reply.  All  that  the  author  says  about 
"  a  complete  induction  "  as  ruling  out  miracles,  is  fully  an- 
swered in  the  remarks  of  Mill  to  which  we  have  just  re- 
ferred. Whether  miracles  have  occurred  is  a  question  of 
evidence.  To  elevate  practically  the  presumption  adverse  to 
their  occurrence,  derived  from  the  observed  uniformity  of 
Nature,  to  a  level  with  mathematical  axioms,  is  an  extrava- 
gance which  hardly  merits  a  serious  refutation. 

But  these  truths  of  natural  religion — such  as  the  being  of 
a  personal  God — are,  says  the  author,  "  a  mere  assumption." 
As  far  as  the  argument  for  miracles  is  concerned,  that  is 
granted  by  the  "  Apologists,"  for  whom  this  author  is  so 
fond  of  expressing  his  contempt.  You  cannot  prove  the 
fact  of  a  miracle  to  a  dogmatic  atheist.  The  Gospels  inform 
us  that  Christ  did  not  expect  persons  of  this  class  to  assent 


A   EEVIEW   OF    6UPERNATUEAL   RELIGION.  537 

to  his  affirmations  respecting  himself.  What  "  Apologists  " 
claim  is  that  the  existence  and  character  of  God  and  the 
need  of  a  revelation  are  assumed  on  good  and  sufficient 
grounds. 

II.  This  author  maintains  that  supernatural  events,  on  the 
supposition  that  they  should  occur,  may  be  referable  to  evil 
beings,  as  well  as  to  God ;  and  that,  hence,  they  have  no 
evidential  value.  Let  it  be  granted  that,  as  far  as  mere 
power  is  concerned,  superhuman  evil  behigs  are  capable  of 
producing  events  which  surpass  the  power  of  men  and  of 
natural  causes.  This  objection  Christ  met  by  saying  that 
"  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand."  Beelzebub 
does  not  work  against  his  own  cause.  He  does  not  do  deeds 
of  benevolence  which  are  adapted  to  win  men  to  the  love 
and  worship  of  God  and  to  the  practice  of  righteousness. 
We  go  behind  the  supernatural  occurrence,  and  determine 
in  particular  its  origin  by  moral  considerations.  Why  is  not 
this  criterion  adequate  ? 

m.  Our  author  strives  again  to  destroy  the  evidential 
value  of  miracles  by  the  consideration  that  their  credibility 
as  divine  works  is  contingent  on  the  character  of  the  doc- 
trine which  they  profess  to  verify.  The  fact  we  admit ;  the 
inference  we  deny.  The  doctrine  proves  the  miracle  and 
the  miracle  proves  the  doctrine.  That  is,  they  lend  to  each 
other  a  mutual  corroboration.  If  the  doctrine  were  immoral 
or  otherwise  unworthy,  it  would  discredit  the  miracle.  If, 
on  the  contrary,  the  doctrine  seems  noble  and  beneficent 
and  worthy  to  have  God  for  its  source,  this  lends  probability 
to  the  miracle,  which,  in  turn,  affixes  a  seal  of  verity  and 
divinity  to  the  doctrine  which  accompanies  it.  The  purity 
and  elevation  of  the  doctrine  are  not  only  a  prerequisite ; 
they  also  give  to  the  miracle  a  measure  of  positive  credibil- 
ity. The  author  of  the  work  before  us  argues  that,  since 
the  contents  of  Revelation  are  above  reason,  they  cannot  be 
judged  to  be  credible  beforehand  ;  and  that  the  presumption 
against  the  recurrence  of  the  miracles  adduced  in  support  of 
23* 


538  THE  FOUE  gospels: 

them  cannot,  therefore,  be  set  aside.  The  supernatural  he 
would  gladly  convert  into  the  anti-natural.  He  takes  as  the 
synonym  of  "  doctrine  "  theological  propositions  upon  the 
Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  etc.  As  if  tlie  whole  teaching  of 
Jesus  upon  man — his  soul,  his  duties,  his  relations  to  God, 
his  sin — and  upon  the  principles  of  God's  government,  and 
as  if  the  personal  characteristics  of  Jesus  himself — his  wis- 
dom, his  self-sacrifice,  his  stainless  purity  and  rectitude — 
were  not  elements  in  that  internal  evidence  which  renders 
miracles  antecedently  credible,  as  the  natural  and  expected 
accompaniments  of  this  unrivalled  moral  and  spiritual  excel- 
lence. This  author  first  reduces  Christianity  and  Christ  to 
a  few  metaphysical  conceptions,  which,  however  well  war- 
ranted, are  far  from  being  a  fair  or  complete  statement  of 
the  Gospel ;  and  then  he  proceeds  to  infer  that  they  are  not 
sufficiently  clear  and  credible  in  themselves  to  lend  an  ante- 
rior probability  to  the  assertion  that  miracles  attend  the  pro- 
mulgation of  them.  He  cannot  be  ignorant  that  intelligent 
"  Apologists  "  have  always  laid  stress  on  the  perfection  of 
the  Gospel  as  a  means  of  deliverance  from  sin,  and  as  a  dis- 
closure of  the  character  of  God ;  on  the  imparalleled  greatness 
and  excellence  of  Jesus  and  the  peculiarity  of  his  aims.  The 
true  relation  of  the  internal  to  the  external  argument  can  be 
made  plain.  Let  us  suppose  ourselves  to  have  been  among 
the  hearers  and  attendants  of  Jesus.  We  first  listen  to  his 
teaching.  We  behold  an  instance  of  healing  performed  by 
him.  It  seems  altogether  miraculous.  But  we  may,  per- 
haps, question  the  accuracy  of  our  observation ;  or,  admitting 
the  phenomenon,  we  may  doubt  as  to  the  agency  by  which 
it  is  made  to  occur — whether  it  be,  indeed,  the  act  of  God, 
or  an  effect  wrought  by  some  inferior,  possibly  evil,  instru- 
mentality. But  the  more  we  see  of  Jesus  the  more  irresisti- 
ble becomes  the  impression  of  His  moral  and  spiritual  integ- 
rity and  elevation.  He  speaks  as  never  man  spake.  Wit- 
nessing, further,  His  wonderful  works,  we  no  longer  doubt 
either  their  reality  or  the  means  by  which  they  are  wrought. 


A    REVIEW    OF    SUPERNATURAL    RELIGION.  539 

Coining  thus  to  believe  in  the  works,  they  cast  back  a  new 
character  of  iinpressiveness  npon  his  teaching,  the  divine 
source  of  which  is  now  demonstrated  by  these  exhibitions  of 
power  and  love.  We  were  not  personally  witnesses  of  the 
miraculous  works,  or  hearers  of  the  teaching  of  Christ ;  but, 
by  means  of  the  testimony  of  the  apostles,  we  can  place  our- 
selves back  among  those  who  were,  and  can  see  with  their 
eyes  and  hear  with  their  ears,  and  can  partake  of  the  im- 
pression which  the  whole  manifestation  of  Jesus  made  upon 
their  minds.  It  does  not  follow  from  the  circumstance  that 
Christianity  is  revealed  and  presents  a  mysterious  side,  that 
it  has  no  points  of  contact  with  man's  intelligence  and  moral 
nature.  Rather  is  it  the  "  bread  of  life."  It  corresponds 
to  an  inward  hunger.  It  meets  profound  and  more  or  less 
conscious  necessities  of  the  soul.  It  is  medicine  to  the  sick. 
In  a  word,  it  is  redemption.  Our  author's  argument  de- 
pends for  its  plausibility  on  an  extreme  and  irrational  super- 
naturalism,  which  ignores  the  affinity  of  Christianity  to  hu- 
man nature,  and  the  intrinsic  rationality  of  the  Gospel,  not- 
withstanding the  mysterious  aspects  and  partially  insoluble 
problems  which  a  divine  revelation  might  be  expected  to 
offer. 

lY.  A  prominent  topic  in  Suj^ernatural  Religion  is  the 
credulity  of  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  the  appearance  of 
Christ.  The  book  speaks  of  the  "  dense  ignorance  and  su- 
perstition "  of  the  Jews  at  that  date.  The  idea  is  that,  in 
such  an  atmosphere,  a  belief  in  all  sorts  of  miracles  might 
easily  arise  and  spread.  When  we  look  for  the  proofs  of 
this  sweeping  statement  respecting  the  countrymen  and  con- 
temporaries of  Josephus,  we  are  furnished  with  an  assem- 
blage of  notions  drawn  partly  from  the  book  of  Enoch  and 
other  apocryphal  writings,  but  mainly  from  the  Talmud, 
which  is  assumed  to  reflect  the  prevalent  ideas  of  the  Jews 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  Era.  Without  debating 
this  last  point,  we  observe  that  it  is  Jewish  notions  about 
angels  and  demons  on  which  our  author  almost  exclusively 


54:0  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS  *. 

dwells.  But  he  breaks  tlie  force  of  liis  own  argument  by 
insisting  himself  on  the  long  continuance  of  what  he  regards 
as  superstitious  beliefs  on  this  subject.  Demoniacal  agency, 
sorcery,  and  witchcraft,  he  tells  us,  have  been  almost  uni- 
versally believed  in,  down  to  a  recent  date.  The  times  of 
King  James  I.  seem,  in  his  judgment,  to  have  shared  in  the 
credulity  of  the  times  of  Herod.  When  he  leaves  this  par- 
ticular topic  of  demoniac  agency,  and  looks  about  for  proofs 
of  the  excessive  credulity  wdiich  he  attributes  to  the  Jews  in 
the  time  of  Christ,  he  is  obliged  to  cite  such  examples  as  the 
familiar  passage  in  Josephus  on  the  portents  observed  in 
connection  with  the  downfall  of  the  Temple.  Of  the  insuf- 
ficiency of  such  proofs  to  establish  his  main  thesis  no  well- 
informed  student  of  history  needs  to  be  assured.  Such  por- 
tents, in  times  of  high-wrought  public  excitement,  even  in 
modern  times,  have  been  often  imagined  to  occur.  There 
are  certain  facts  which  prove  conclusively  the  erroneous  and 
misleading  conception  of  the  state  of  the  Jewish  mind  which 
this  author  seems  to  entertain.  The  geographical  position  of 
the  Jews ;  their  intercourse  with  the  Greek  world,  as  indi- 
cated in  the  circumstance  that  they  were  bilingual ;  the  fixed 
legal  character  of  their  theology  and  worship  ;  the  existence 
of  the  party  of  Sadducees,  a  party  marked  by  a  tone  of  skep- 
ticism ;  the  fact  that  no  miracles  are  ascribed  to  John  the 
Baptist  and  none  to  Jesus  before  his  public  life  began ;  the 
numerous  expressions  in  the  gospels  which  signify  the  amaze- 
ment which  the  miracles  of  Christ  excited — these  are  among 
the  circumstances  which  disprove  the  position  of  the  author 
of  this  work.  How  could  events  of  a  class  which  everybody 
easily  credited,  and  believed  to  be  common,  excite  astonish- 
ment and  fear,  and  be  spoken  of  as  events  the  like  of 
which  had  never  been  heard  of  ? 

Y.  We  are  told  by  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion^ 
that  if  we  believe  the  gospel  miracles  we  must  likewise  ac- 
cept the  later  ecclesiastical  miracles ;  that  both  classes  rest 
upon   equal   evidence;  that   there   has  been   a  continuous 


A   REVIEW   OF    BIJPEENATTJRAL   RELIGION.  641 

stream  of  miraculous  pretension  down  to  the  present  time ; 
and  that  to  draw  a  line  at  any  given  point,  after  which  we 
withhold  our  credence,  is  an  arbitrary  proceeding. 

The  view  which  an  enlightened  Protestant  takes  of  mira- 
cles is  this :  that  they  w^ere  requisite  elements  in  that  crea- 
tive, providential  epoch  when  Christ  and  Christianity  were 
introduced  and  entered  into  the  historic  life  of  humanity. 
At  the  same  time,  we  are  not  obliged  to  affirm  that  mira- 
cles, at  a  given  instant,  abruptly  and  altogether  ceased.  In- 
stances of  manifest  supernatural  power  exerted,  in  answer 
to  prayer,  in  the  healing  of  physical  disorders,  may  have 
occurred  after  the  death  of  the  apostles,  and  even  in  later 
ages.  Such  events  would  not  prove  the  infallibility  of  those 
through  whose  instrumentality  they  were  wrought ;  nor 
would  they  invalidate  the  force  of  the  gospel  miracles  as 
attestations  of  authoritative  teaching.  In  the  case  of  the 
latter,  they  were  avowedly  presented  as  credentials  of  a  di- 
vine commission  to  teach.  This  was  one  of  their  direct 
and  declared  functions.  But  of  the  alleged  post-apostolic 
miracles  in  the  patristic  age  we  remark,  first,  that  they  most 
frequently  lack  the  proofs  that  would  be  requisite  to  estab- 
lish even  extraordinary  natural  events.  For  example,  the 
author  of  this  work  appeals  to  the  stories  told  of  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus  by  his  biographer,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  by 
St.  Basil.  But  both  of  these  lived  a  century  after  the  per- 
son to  whom  these  narrative's  relate.  As  to  St.  Basil,  our 
author  can  hardly  be  serious  in  recommending  his  testi- 
mony on  the  ground  that  his  "  grandmother,  St.  Macrina, 
was  brought  up  at  jN"eo-C8esarea  by  the  immediate  follow- 
ers of  the  saint."  In  many  other  cases  the  evidence,  when 
it  is  sifted,  turns  out  to  be  not  more  satisfactory.  We  re- 
mark, secondly,  that  the  alleged  post-apostolic  miracles  are 
conceded  to  be  in  contrast  with  those  of  the  Gospels  in  re- 
spect to  "  dignity  and  beauty."  This  author  tries  to  account 
for  the  fact  by  saying  that  the  latter  were  associated  with 
"  our  sublimest  teacher."     But  the  explanation  is  not  very 


54:2  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS  : 

clear,  and  the  striking  fact  remains  that  the  miracles  of  the 
apocryphal  gospels,  which  are  connected  with  Christ,  have 
a  grotesque  and  offensive  character,  in  marked  contrast  with 
the  narratives  of  the  evangelists.  These  last  narratives 
comport  with  the  whole  tone  of  the  teaching  ascribed  to 
Christ ;  they  harmonize  with  it  in  their  spirit,  they  fit  into 
it  also,  and  are  presupposed  by  it  in  ways  which  no  counter- 
feiter would  be  expert  enough  to  contrive.  We  remark, 
thirdly,  that  the  post-apostolic  and  especially  the  mediaeval 
legends  of  miracles  are  explicable  from  the  effect  of  Chris- 
tianity itself,  with  its  authentic  miracles,  upon  the  imagina- 
tion and  feelings  of  men  of  undisciplined  minds,  who  were 
deeply  impressed  and  kindled  into  a  flame  of  emotional  life 
by  the  Gospel.  The  gospel  miracles,  on  the  other  hand, 
were  not  wrought  in  behalf  of  an  accepted  faith ;  they  crea- 
ted a  new  faith.  It  is  not  true,  as  the  author  says,  that  no 
individuals  in  the  mediaeval  age  ascribed  to  themselves  mir- 
aculous powers.  For  example,  Augustin,  the  missionary  to 
the  Anglo-Saxons,  and  St.  Bernard  supposed  themselves  to 
perform  miraculous  works  of  healing.  But,  generally  speak- 
ing, it  is  true  that  it  was  not  the  missionaries  and  preachers 
themselves,  but  others  about  them  or  after  them,  who  at- 
tributed to  them  these  marvels. 

Now  the  Old  Testament  religion  stood  in  no  such  rela- 
tion to  Jesus  and  his  contemporaries  as  did  the  Gospel  to 
the  mediaeval  peoples,  and  in  a  less  degree  to  the  Christians 
of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries.  Keander,  in  his  Life  of 
Christy  has  a  brief  but  profound  and  important  passage  on 
this  distinction.  Christ  and  the  apostles  introduced  a  move- 
ment which  is  aboriginal  and  creative,  notwithstanding  its 
organic  relation  to  the  Old  Testament  religion.  It  is  pretty 
generally  felt  that  Strauss's  theory  was  a  plausible,  but  su- 
perficial, hypothesis.  Judaism  was  languishing  and  dying. 
The  age  of  miracles  was  in  the  far-off  past.  Men  were 
fully  sensible  of  the  contrast  between  that  distant  period, 
the  era  of  Moses  and  of  the  prophets,  and  the  stagnant  and 


A   REVIEW    OF    SUPEENATUKAL   KELIGION.  543 

petrified  period  in  which  they  themselves  were  living.  There 
were  no  miracle- workers,  unless  exorcists  are  to  be  counted  as 
such.  Moreover,  it  is  inconceivable  that  Jesus  could  have 
believed  himself  to  be  the  Messiah,  or  in  that  character 
could  have  attached  his  followers  to  his  person,  had  he  not 
wrought  miracles. 

The  main  question  is  whether  the  Gospels  give  a  substan- 
tially correct  representation  of  the  life  of  Jesus — of  what 
he  said  and  what  he  did.  If  the  writer  of  Supernatural 
Religion  had  succeeded  in  his  literary  attack — we  hold  that 
he  has  added  another  to  the  long  list  of  failures — but  had 
he  succeeded,  he  would  have  simply  shown  that  these  par- 
ticular books,  in  their  present  form,  represent  merely  the 
belief  of  the  church  in  the  second  century.  But  how  the 
church  arose,  what  Christianity  was — that  tremendous  move- 
ment which  went  forth  with  a  silent,  conquering  power,  in 
the  face  of  obloquy,  torture,  death,  on  its  mission  to  subdue 
the  world — of  these  questions  we  are  furnished  with  no  so- 
lution. It  is  as  certain  as  any  historical  fact  can  be — the 
Epistles  of  Paul,  by  themselves,  establish  it — that  the  apos- 
tles, the  immediate  followers  and  chosen  companions  of 
Jesus,  testified  to  the  miracles,  including  the  crowning  mira- 
cle of  his  resurrection. 

The  capital  defect  of  this  book,  and  of  many  other  books 
of  the  same  kind,  is  that  they  utterly  lack  a  deep,  broad, 
comprehensive  understanding  of  Christianity,  and  a  phi- 
losophical appreciation  of  its  historical  relation  to  the  times 
previous  and  to  the  times  subsequent  to  its  appearance  in 
the  world.  If  here  is  not  a  new  spiritual  creation,  if  Christ 
is  not  "  the  second  Adam,"  a  new  head  of  humanity,  the 
Redeemer,  all  this  discussion  about  miracles  might  as  well 
be  dropped.  Writers,  who  start  with  the  fixed  idea,  whether 
consciously  or  unconsciously  cherished,  that  the  Christian 
religion  is  an  example  of  the  thousand  and  one  impostures 
which  have  arisen  and  passed  away  in  each  generation ; 
writers  who  are  thus  ignorant  of  Christianity  as  a  system 


544  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS. 

of  moral  and  religious  truth,  and  as  a  vast,  transforming 
movement  in  the  course  of  human  history,  are  shut  up  by 
their  own  narrow  perceptions  to  a  false  conclusion.  One 
who  mistakes  a  pyramid  upon  the  Nile  for  a  cob-house  will 
hardly  arrive  at  a  correct  theory  respecting  its  origin. 


THE   END. 


INDEX. 


Ab61ard,  characterized,  228. 

Agency,  human,  in  conversion  and 
sanctification,  349  seq. 

Albornoz,  Cardinal,  his  service  to  the 
popes,  81. 

Alexander  VI.,  Pope,  his  character,  84. 

Allen,  Rev.  Dr.  H.,  on  Rev.  T.  Bin- 
ney's  views  of  future  punishment, 
434. 

Alva,  the  Duke  of,  14. 

Amboise,  the  conspiracy  of,  10. 

Ambrose,  on  the  invocation  of  angels, 
51. 

Anjou,  Duke  of  (Henry  III.),  his  pro- 
jected marriage  with  Elizabeth,  14; 
his  account  of  the  plot  of  St.  Bar- 
tholomew, 20. 

Annihilation  of  the  wicked,  doctrine  of 
the,  430. 

Anselm,  of  Canterbury,  227;  his  dis- 
cussion of  original  sin,  365;  on  the 
transmission  of  sin,  367. 

Aquinas,  Thomas,  227 ;  on  necessity 
and  freedom,  236 ;  on  the  divine  per- 
mission of  sm,  305,  324  ;  his  discus- 
sion of  original  sin,  369. 

Arabic  schools,  scepticism  in  the  Span- 
ish, 442. 

Aristotle,  on  the  desire  of  happiness, 
314. 

Arnobius.  on  future  punishment,  412. 

Arnold,  Matthew,  on  the  conversion  of 
Paul,  492.  495. 

Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  as 
relating  to  episcopacy,  213  seq. 


Atheism,  grows  out  of  the  fact  that 
God  is  imperceptible  by  the  senses, 
469  ;  or  out  of  the  notion  that  second 
causes  exclude  the  first  cause,  470; 
or  out  of  the  assumption  that  me- 
chanical causes  exclude  design,  472 ; 
or  out  of  the  assumption  that  the 
uniformity  of  nature  is  inconsistent 
with  theism,  473 ;  or  out  of  the  belief 
that  the  Bible  contradicts  science, 
474;  or  out  of  the  supposed  imper- 
fection of  nature,  477 ;  disproved  by 
the  revelation  of  God  in  the  soul, 
478 ;  by  the  marks  of  design  in  the 
world,  480 ;  by  the  revelation  of  God 
in  nature,  483 ;  by  the  revelation  of 
God  in  Christ,  484 ;  involves  sin,  485. 

Augustine,  his  Latin  training,  49;  on 
the  use  of  incense,  59;  his  Co7ifes- 
sions,  227 ;  on  the  idea  of  necessity, 
236 ;  on  liberty  ad  utrumvis,  238 ;  on 
the  desire  of  happiness,  314;  on  the 
voluntary  nature  of  sin,  342 ;  relation 
of  his  theory  of  original  sin  to  real- 
ism, 359 ;  on  the  origin  of  souls,  361 
seq.;  his  difficulties  in  regard  to 
creationism,  364 ;  his  letter  to  Jerome 
on  original  sin,  362  seq. 

Augustinians  admit  the  power  of  con- 
trary choice,  309. 


Bacon,  Lord,  on  the  admission  of  pres- 
byterian  ministers  to  English  par- 
ishes, 187. 


546 


INDEX. 


Bancroft,  Dr.,  on  the  jure  divino  bu- 
periority  of  bishops,  185. 

BaroniuB,  Cardinal,  on  the  donation  of 
Constantino,  74;  on  the  Bible  and 
science,  4T5. 

Baxter,  Richard,  his  conversation  with 
Ussher  on  Presbyterian  ordination, 
201. 

Becon,  Thomas,  on  the  identity  of 
bishop  and  presbyter,  185. 

Bellamy,  Joseph,  on  the  divine  permis- 
sion of  sin,  307. 

Bellarmine,  on  the  Constance  decrees, 
121. 

Bernard,  St.,  characterized,  228. 

Bible,  the,  its  relation  to  natural  sci- 
ence, 474  seq. 

Bishops,  not  considered  a  distinct 
order,  in  the  middle  ages,  183. 

Bonaparte,  Napoleon,  his  dealings  with 
the  Popes,  86. 

Boniface  VIII.,  Pope,  his  conflict  with 
the  Colonnas,  79 ;  how  described  by 
Dante,  79  seq. 

Bowen,  Prof.  Francis,  on  the  merit  of 
Berkeley,  230. 

Bramhall,  Archbishop,  his  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  222. 

Brentius,  on  original  sin,  374. 

Brescia,  Arnold  of,  his  aims  and  career, 
76. 

Bmmalia,  57. 

Buckle,  H.  T.,  his  philosophy,  453. 

Buckminster,  Joseph  S.,  his  eloquence 
in  the  pulpit,  253. 

Burnet,  Bishop,  his  character  as  a  his- 
torian, 192. 

Butler,  Bishop,  on  the  desire  of  happi- 
ness, 315. 

Church,  the  Roman  Catholic,  its  use- 
fulness in  the  middle  agos,  162 ;  the 
rule  of  society  by  a  sacerdotal  class, 
163 ;  unfavorable  to  liberty,  166 ;  does 
not  condemn  religious  persecution, 
169 ;  effect  of  commerce  upon  the  au- 
thority of  its  clergy,  171 ;  its  influence 
in  South  America  and  Mexico,  172  ;  in 
a  struggle  to  revive  medi8evalism,175  ; 
how  far  in  agreement  with  the  Pro- 


testant, 439 ;  its  doctrine  of  tradi- 
tion, 440 ;  its  doctrine  of  church  au- 
thority, 440.    See  Churchy  the  Latin. 

Civilization,  constituent  elements  of, 
161 ;  influence  of  Christianity  upon, 
162. 

Clarendon,  on  the  growth  of  High 
Church  notions  in  England,  195. 

Clarke,  Dr.  Samuel,  his  view  of  liberty 
and  necessity,  249. 

Clement,  of  Alexandria,  on  the  art  of 
painting,  53 ;  on  future  punishment, 
412  ;  on  the  Four  Gospels,  522. 

Clement,  of  Rome,  his  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  45 ;  on  the  method  of 
appointing  church  oflicers,  151. 

Cocceius,  on  original  sin,  374 ;  his  rela- 
tion to  the  Federal  theology,  375. 

Coligny,  Gaspard  de,  his  character,  9; 
at  the  court  of  Charles  IX.,  15;  the 
attempt  to  assassinate  him,  19 ;  death 
of,  23. 

Collins,  his  doctrine  of  liberty  com- 
pared with  that  of  Edwards,  234  seq. 

Conclave,  origin  of  the  Papal,  151  seq. 

Cajetan,  on  Aquinas's  doctrine  of  ori- 
ginal sin,  370. 

Calvin,  John,  his  influence  on  France, 
5;  his  view  of  episcopacy,  196;  on 
the  divine  permission  of  sin,  306 ,  his 
discussion  of  original  sin,  371  seq.  ; 
contrasted  with  Wesley,  500. 

Calvinism,  its  spread  in  France,  5 ; 
on  the  state  of  the  will  after  the  fall, 
294;  supralapsarian,  347;  the  doc- 
trine of  future  punishment  in,  436 
seq. 

Canon,  not  to  be  determined  by  church 
authority,  445. 

Cardinals,  origin  of,  148  seq.  ;  how  ap- 
pointed, 150 ;  their  functions,  151. 

Cardwell,  on  changes  in  the  Prayer 
Book  at  the  Restoration,  220. 

Carpocratians,  their  use  of  images  of 
Jesus,  55. 

Catacombs,  pictures  in  the,  54. 

Catherine  de  Medici,  her  character,  6 ; 
her  leading  purpose,  11 ;  her  connec- 
tion with  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartho- 
lomew, 19  seq. ;  her  death,  33. 


INDEX. 


547 


Catharintis,  on  imputation,  400, 

Cavour,  Count,  158. 

Celestine  III.,  Pope,  155. 

Channing,  character  of  his  eloquence, 
253  ;  Bources  of  his  power,  254 ,  early 
influences  upon  his  mind,  262 ;  stud- 
ies Ferguson  and  Hutcheson,  363 ; 
sentimental  period  in  his  early  life, 
263 ;  his  religious  consecration,  263 ; 
a  student  of  Price,  264;  his  inter- 
course with  Hopkins,  264;  his  idea 
of  the  dignity  of  human  nature,  266  ; 
imperfect  discernment  of  the  guilt  and 
power  of  sin,  367  seq. ;  captivated  by 
an  ideal  of  human  nature,  269;  his 
doctrine  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God, 
270 ;  on  the  purpose  of  the  mission  of 
Christ,  273  ;  on  the  relation  of  Christ's 
death  to  the  remission  of  sin,  274 ;  on 
the  essentials  of  Christian  doctrine, 
275 ;  his  relation  to  Parkerism,  219 
seq.  ;  his  discourse  on  war,  281  seq.  ; 
his  papers  on  slavery,  283. 

Charlemagne,  his  authority  in  relation 
to  the  popes,  72  seq. ,  148. 

Charles  IX.,  King  of  France,  his  char- 
acter, 15 ;  his  death,  33. 

Chauncey,  Dr.  Charles,  on  future  pun- 
ishment, 436. 

Christ,  his  eternal  sonship,  273;  the 
Nicene  doctrine  respecting,  273. 

Christianity,  Jewish  stage  of,  34; 
Greek  stage  of,  35;  its  relation  to 
paganism,  36  seq.  ;  not  to  be  thought 
out  a  priori,  461. 

Chrysostom,  on  the  observance  of 
Christmas,  56. 

Church,  the  Eastern,  44;  its  stagna- 
tion, 439. 

Church  of  England,  High  Church  doc- 
trine in  the,  176. 

Church,  the  Latin,  had  the  Roman  ge- 
nius for  ruling,  45  ;  its  ideal  of  impe- 
rialism, 46 ;  its  legal  spirit,  47 ;  con- 
trasted with  the  Greek  Church,  49 ; 
contrasted  with  Teutonic  Christian- 
ity, 49;  its  cultus  of  angels  and 
saints,  50  seq. ;  localizing  of  worship 
in,  52  ;  its  use  of  image  and  pictures, 
53;  multiplying  of  festivals  in,  56; 


its  customs  and  ceremonies  resem- 
bling those  of  heathenism,  58  seq. 
See  Church,  the  Rommi  Catholic. 

Constance,  the  Council  of,  its  charac- 
ter, 101 ;  its  oecumenical  authority, 
105 ;  its  condemnation  of  Huss,  109 
seq. 

Constantine,  the  pretended  donation 
of,  74. 

Constantia,  sister  of  Constantine,  54. 

Cosin,  Bishop,  on  the  admission  of 
presbyterian  ministers  to  English 
parishes,  187. 

Council,  the  Vatican,  its  definition  of 
the  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  133; 
its  definition  of  the  Pope's  jurisdic- 
tion in  the  church,  133. 

Cranmer,  invites  Peter  Martyr  and 
Bucer  to  England,  182 ;  his  plan  for 
a  general  synod  of  Protestants,  183  ; 
on  the  identity  of  bishop  and  pres- 
byter, 184;  his  final  views  on  epis- 
copacy, 218. 

Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  on  the 
choice  of  Cornelius  to  the  Roman 
Bishopric,  147. 

Dante,  his  protest  against  the  tem- 
poral power  of  the  popes,  91. 

Decretals,  the  pseudo-Isodorian,  74. 

De  Rossi,  on  the  pictures  in  the  Cata- 
combs, 54. 

Design,  the  argument  of,  480  seq. 

Development,  Dr.  Newman's  theory 
of,  43. 

Diodore  of  Tarsus,  on  future  punish- 
ment, 415. 

Doddridge,  Philip,  his  theology,  339 ; 
on  original  sin,  396. 

Dominicus  Soto,  on  imputation,  401. 

Dort,  the  synod  of,  delegates  from  the 
English  Church  in,  190. 

Dwight,  President  T.,  character  of  his 
influence  as  a  theologian,  259 ;  char- 
acter of  his  influence  as  a  preacher, 
260 ;  on  original  sin,  298  seq.  ;  on  re- 
generation, 301 ;  on  the  desire  of 
happiness,  315. 

Edwards,     Jonathan,     his   precocity, 


648 


INDEX. 


228 ;  a  Berkeleian,  329  seq. ;  his  first 
acquaintance  with  Berkeley's  doc- 
trine, 231 ;  how  influenced  by  Locke, 
231 ;  his  doctrine  on  the  Will  com- 
pared with  that  of  Hobbes  and  Col- 
lins, 234 ;  his  objection  to  the  term 
"necessary,"  236;  a  champion  of 
Calvinism,  237;  his  conception  of 
freedom,  238  ;  his  confidence  in  rea- 
soning, 239  ;  his  conception  of  origi- 
nal sin,  239 ;  his  ethical  theory,  241 
seq. ;  on  the  meaning  of  self-love, 
243  ;  on  God's  chief  end  in  creation, 
244 ;  his  acquaintance  with  Hutche- 
son,  245 ;  his  History  of  Redemp- 
9ion^  246  ;  his  idea  of  predestination, 
247  ;  his  studious  habits,  251 ;  the 
theological  movement  led  by  him, 
256 ;  his  doctrine  of  original  sin, 
257 ;  drift  of  his  treatise  on  the  Will, 
258;  on  our  identity  with  Adam, 
290 ;   how  far  indebted    to    Locke, 

291  ;  his  idea  of   "natural  ability," 

292  ;  his  relation  to  Hobbes  and  Col- 
lins, 293;  the  relation  of  his  doc- 
trine on  the  Will  to  former  Calvin- 
ism, 294  ;  on  the  desire  of  happiness, 
814 ;  on  our  identity  with  Adam, 
898. 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  Jr.,  state  of  Cal- 
vinism when  his  father  began  his 
work,  289;  on  future  punishment, 
436. 

Election,  Dr.  N.  W.  Taylor's  concep- 
tion of,  325. 

Elizabeth,  Queen,  her  suspension  of 
Archbishop  Grindal,  1 85. 

Elmmons,  Dr.  Nathaniel,  on  original 
sin,  296.  ' 

England,  the  Reformation  in,  1. 

England,  Church  of.  its  opportunities 
for  a  more  catholic  comprehension, 
224. 

Epicurus,  on  the  existence  of  evil,  321. 

Epiphany,  the  feast  of,  56. 

Erastianism,  its  spread  among  Protes- 
tants, 185 ;  opposed  by  Calvin, 
185. 

Erskine,  Thomas,  on  future  punish- 
ment, 435. 


Eschatology,  views  of  German  theolo- 
gians concerning,  421. 

Eugene  III.,  Pope,  155. 

Eugene  IV.,  Pope,  sanctions  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Council  of  Constance, 
108. 

Eusebius,  of  Caesarea,  on  the  use  of 
images,  54. 

Everett,  Edward,  on  the  eloquence  of 
the  younger  Buckminster,  253. 

Evolution,  not  inconsistent  with  de- 
sign, 481. 

Fagius,  Paul,  made  teacher  at  Cam- 
bridge, 182. 
Faith,  its  relation  to  reason  according 

to  Protestantism,  443  seq. 
Ferguson,  influence  of  his  writings  on 
Channing,  262. 

Festivals,  the  early  Christian,  56  seq. 

Fichte,  the  younger,  his  opinion  of  Ed- 
wards's theory  of  virtue,  245. 

Field,  Dean,  on  the  identity  of  bishop 
and  presbyter,  184. 

Fitch,  Dr.  E.  T.,on  the  scientia media^ 
335. 

Fleetwood,  Bishop,  on  the  admission 
of  presbyterian  ministers  to  English 
parishes.  187. 

Formula  Consensus  Helvetica,  891. 

Foster,  John,  on  future  punishment, 
431.  " 

France,  in  the  age  of  the  reformation, 
2 ;  development  of  its  territory,  2 ; 
its  ruling  families,  8. 

France,  materials  of  civil  war  in,  10. 

France,  beginning  of  the  civil  wars  in, 
11. 

Francis  I.,  king  of  France,  3  ;  his  con- 
cordat with  Pope  Leo  X.,  4. 

Francis  II.,  king  of  France,  5. 

Eraser,  Prof.,  on  Edwards's  acquain- 
tance with  Berkeley,  231. 

Frederick  II.,  the  emperor,  155. 

Fulke,  master  of  Pembroke  College,  on 
the  identity  of  bishop  and  presby- 
ter, 185. 


Galileo,  opposed  by  scientific  men,  463. 


rNDEX. 


549 


Gallicanism,  its  principles,  110;  how 
regarded  by  Manning,  128  ;  Bossuet's 
definition  of,  138. 

Garrison,  W.  L.,  his  method  of  com- 
bating slavery,  283. 

Germany,  the  reformation  in,  1. 

Gieseler,  reply  to  a  criticism  of  Hefele 
on,  117. 

Gladstone,  W.  E.,  his  discussion  of  the 
Vatican  decrees,  133;  on  the  au- 
thority and  meaning  of  the  papal 
syllabus,  134 ;  on  the  power  of  juris- 
diction given  to  the  Pope,  135  ;  on  the 
Pope's  deposing  power,  136 ;  on  the 
relation  of  the  Roman  Catholic  theo- 
ries to  liberty,  138 ;  on  the  breach  of 
ple,dges  given  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
clergy  in  Great  Britain,  138 ;  on  the 
difference  between  Protestants  and 
Catholics  as  to  civil  loyalty,  139. 

Gospels,  the  synoptic,  their  origin,  513. 

Gratry,  M.,  on  the  heresy  of  Honorius, 
124  seq. 

Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  on  future  pun- 
ishment, 445. 

Gregory  of  Nyssa,  on  future  punish- 
ment. 415. 

Gregory  I.,  Pope,  45  ;  his  reluctance  to 
accept  the  station,  155. 

Gregory  VII.,  Pope,  and  Henry  IV.  of 
Germany,  45. 

Gregory  XIII.,  Pope,  approves  of  the 
massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,  27. 

Guise,  Duke  Francis  of,  8  ;  assassina- 
tion of,  12. 

Guise,  Duke  Henry  of,  his  connection 
with  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholo- 
mew, 23 ;  killed  at  Blois,  32. 

Guizot,  on  the  temporal  kingdom  of  the 
popes,  96  seq. 

Hades,  early  Christian  doctrine  con- 
cerning, 416 ;  its  import  in  the  New 
Testament,  417. 

Hall,  Bishop,  on  the  admission  of  non- 
episcopal  ministers  to  preferment  in 
the  English  Church,  190 ;  on  the  vali- 
dity of  Presbyterian  ordination,  203 
seq.  ;  209. 

Hall,  Robert,  on  the  relation  of  Godwin 


to  Edwards,  244 ;  on  future  punish- 
ment, 414 ;  abandoned  materialism, 
465. 

Hallam,  on  the  doctrine  of  English  re- 
formers respecting  episcopacy,  180 ; 
on  the  admission  of  foreigners  to 
preferment  in  the  English  Church 
without  reordination,  186. 

Hamilton,  Sir  William,  his  view  of  lib- 
erty and  necessity,  250 ;  on  the  rela- 
tion of  Edwards  to  Collins,  293. 

Hebrews,  the  Gospel  of  the,  514. 

Hefele,  Bishop,  his  theory  respecting 
Pope  and  Council,  102  ;  on  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Pope  to  the  Council  of  Ni- 
cea,  103  ;  on  the  decrees  of  the  fourth 
and  fifth  sessions  of  the  Council  of 
Constance,  105  seq. ;  on  the  execu- 
tion of  Huss,  110  seq.  ;  on  the  safe- 
conduct  given  by  Sigismund  to  Huss, 
113  seq.  ;  on  Pope  Honorius,  160. 

Hegel,  on  the  Reformation,  50. 

Henry  of  Navarre,  his  projected  mar- 
riage with  Margaret,  16 ;  his  mar- 
riage, 18. 

Henry  II.,  king  of  France,  his  treat- 
ment of  the  Protestants,  4;  his 
treaty  with  Philip  II.  for  the  exter- 
mination of  heresy,  5  ;  his  death,  5. 

Henry  IH. ,  king  of  France,  death  of, 
33. 

Hildebrand,see  Gregory  VII. 

History,  the  apostle  Paul's  philosophy 
of,  490. 

Hobbes,  his  doctrine  of  liberty  com- 
pared with  that  of  Edwards,  234. 

Hodge,  Dr.  A.  A.,  his  Outlines  of 
Theology^  285. 

Hodge,  Dr.  Charles,  his  article  on  Pres- 
byterian Reunion,  285  ;  criticism  of 
his  representation  of  Dr.  N.  W.  Tay- 
lor's theology,  332  seq. 

Honorius,  Pope,  embraced  heresy,  122 
seq. 

Hooker,  Richard,  recognizes  the  valid- 
ity of  presbyterian  ordination,  186, 
198 ;  on  the  competency  of  the  church 
to  change  its  government,  210. 

Hopkins,  President  Mark,  on  the  de- 
sire of  happiness,  315. 


550 


INDEX. 


Hopkins,  Dr.  Samuel,  his  influence  on 
Channing,  264  ;  on  original  sin,  295  ; 
on  divine  efficiency,  295 ;  on  the  di- 
vine permission  of  sin,  307. 

Hopkinsianism,  characterized,  257. 

Hosius,  Bishop,  his  connection  with 
the  council  of  Nicea,  103. 

Howe,  John,  on  God's  Prescience  of 
sin,  327. 

Hume,  David,  on  the  existence  of  evil, 
321. 

Huss,  John,  his  principles,  109 ;  his  ex- 
ecution, 110  ;  the  safe-conduct  given 
to  him,  113  seq.;  his  treatment  by 
the  Council  of  Constance,  119  seq. 

Hutcheson,  the  Scottish  philosopher, 
245;  influence  of  his  writings  on 
Channing,  262. 

Huxley,  Prof.,  on  the  nature  of  matter, 
452;  his  philosophy  of  induction, 
452. 

Hyacinthe,  Pfere,  67  ;  his  ecclesiastical 

•  position,  160. 


Images,    used    in   worship,    53    seq. ; 

Augustine  on  the  worship  of,  55. 
Imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  Augustinian 

philosophy  of,  386  ;  Roman  Catholic 

theory  of,  400. 
Imputation,   Federal  doctrine  of,  ob- 
jections to  it,  403  seq. 
Incense,  its  use  in  churches,  59. 
Innocent  II.,  Pope,  155. 
Innocent  III.,  Pope,  46  ;  builds  up  the 

papal  kingdom,  77, 155. 
Innocent  VIII.,   Pope,  his  character, 

84. 
Intermediate  state,   Protestant  views 

respecting,  420  seq. 
Irenaeus,  wrote  in  Greek,  35 ;  a  witness 

to  the  gospels,  532. 
Italy,  Protestantism  in,  2 ;  restoration 

of  its  unity,  157. 


James  I.,  king,  sends  delegates  to  the 

Synod  of  Dort,  190. 
Jansenists,  on  the  resistibility  of  grace, 

294. 


Jansenius,  on  the  covenant  theory  of 

imputation,  402. 
Jeanne  D' Albret,  the  queen  of  Navarre, 

at  Blois,  16  ;  her  death,  17. 
Jerome,  St.,  on  the  purity  of  the  clergy, 

184. 
Jewel,  Bishop,  on  the  identity  of  bishop 

and  presbyter,  184  ;  on  the  origin  of 

bishops,   208;  his  use  of    the  term 

'*  order,  "210. 
John,  the  Gospel  of,   its  genuineness, 

528  ;  quoted  by  Justin,  539. 
Johnson,  Dr.  Samuel,  a  tutor  in  Yale 

Coliege,  231. 
Joseph  II.,  the  emperor,  his  reforms, 

95. 
Julian,  of  Eclanuma,  his  opposition  to 

Augustinism,  361. 
Julius  II.,  Pope,  builds  up  the  states  of 

the  church,  85. 
Justin  Martyr,  on  future  punishment, 

411 ;    the  gospels  used   by  him,  514 

seq. ;  his  method  of  quotation,  517 ; 

source  of  his  quotations,  521. 
Justinian,  his  treatment  of  the  popes, 

148. 

Keble,  John,  on  the  jure  divino  theory 
of  episcopacy,  183  ;  on  the  admission 
of  non-episcopal  ministers  to  English 
parishes,  192. 

Kingdom,  the  Pope's  temporal,  its  rise, 
69 ;  after  the  donation  of  Pepin,  72 ; 
how  affected  by  the  divisions  in  the 
Frank  empire,  74 ;  enlarged  by  the 
bequest  of  Matilda,  75  ;  enlarged  by 
Innocent  III. ,  77 ;  concessions  ex- 
torted by  the  cities  in,  78 ;  its  condi- 
tion during  the  "  Babylonian  captiv- 
ity," 81 ;  how  affected  by  the  Pope's 
return  to  Rome,  82 ;  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  15th  century,  83  seq.; 
strengthened  by  Julius  II.,  86 ;  dur- 
ing the  French  revolution,  86  ;  under 
Pius  IX.,  87 ;  character  of  the  gov- 
ernment in,  88  ;  its  influence  on  the 
character  of  the  popes,  89  seq.; 
Guizot  on  the  expediency  of  continu- 
ing, 96;  its  absorption  in  the  king- 
dom of  Italy,  99. 


INDEX. 


551 


La  Place,  his  alleged  atheism,  469. 

Law,  Roman,  its  influence  on  theology, 
47. 

Lasco,  John  a,  superintendent  of  the 
foreign  churches  in  London,  210. 

Lathbury,  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Eng- 
lish reformers  respecting  episcopacy, 
177. 

Laud,  Archbishop,  his  connection  with 
the  jure  divino  doctrine  of  episcopa- 
cy, 194. 

League,  Catholic,  in  France,  13. 

Leibnitz,  on  the  divine  permission  of 
sin,  323. 

Leo  I.,  Pope,  on  the  worship  of  the  sun 
among  Christians,  57. 

Leo  III.,  Pope,  crowns  Charlemagne, 
68,  73. 

Leo  X. ,  Pope,  how  described  by  Father 
Paul  Sarpi,  90  ;  made  cardinal,  150, 

Liberius,  Pope,  errs  from  the  faith,  122. 

Liberty  and  necessity,  Dr.  Samuel 
Clarke's  view  of,  249  ;  the  later  New 
England  theology  on,  249;  Sir  Wil- 
liam Hamilton's  doctrine  respecting, 
250;  Dr.  Mozley's  conception  of, 
250 ;  Dr.  N.  W.  Taylor's  theory  of, 
308  seq. 

Lightfoot,  Bishop,  on  the  angels  of  the 
Apocalypse,  201. 

Locke,  John,  his  influence  on  Edwards, 
231 ;  his  doctrine  of  liberty  and  ne- 
cessity, 232  ;  the  influence  of  his  writ- 
ings in  New  England,  255 ;  on  the  de- 
sire of  happiness,  314 ;  on  the  an- 
nihilation of  the  wicked,  431. 

Lombards,  conquest  of,  by  Pepin,  71. 

Louis  of  Conde,  his  character,  9. 

Louis  XL,  king  of  France,  3. 

Luther,  Martin,  assaulted  central  dog- 
mas, 67 ;  against  the  doctrine  of  a 
priestly  order  in  the  church,  196. 

Lutheranism  in  France,  4. 


Machiavelli,  his  political  ethics,  7. 

Mackintosh,  Sir  James,  his  opinion  of 
Jonathan  Edwards,  228 ;  his  descrip- 
tion of  Edwards's  theory  of  virtue, 
246. 


Macaulay,  his  character  as  a  historian, 
192. 

Maine,  Mr.,  on  the  influence  of  Roman 
law  upon  theology,  47. 

Manning,  Cardinal,  on  Bossuet,  127 ;  in 
favor  of  declaring  the  Pope's  infalli- 
bility, 130. 

Marcion's  gospel,  its  origin,  523. 

Margaret,  sister  of  Francis  L ,  66. 

Margaret  of  Valois,  her  account  of  the 
massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,  25. 

Martensen,  on  future  punishment,  429. 

Martin  V.,  Pope,  his  Bull  against  the 
Hussites,  105 ;  sanctions  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Council  of  Constance,  107. 

Massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,  the 
causes  and  instruments  of  the,  28  seq. 

Matilda,  Countess  of  Tuscany,  her  be- 
quest to  the  Papal  See,  75. 

Maurice,  F.  D.,  on  Edwards's  treatise 
on  the  Will,  227 ;  on  future  punish- 
ment, 431. 

Melanchthon,  Philip,  his  view  of  epis- 
copacy, 196 ;  on  the  odium  theologi- 
cum,  285 ;  persecution  of,  285 ;  on 
original  sin,  374;  on  the  scepticism 
of  the  Renaissance,  442. 

Mill,  Mr.  J.  S. ,  on  the  relation  of  posi- 
tivism to  theism,  449 ;  on  miracles, 
536. 

Miracles,  ecclesiastical,  38. 

Miracles,  source  of  disbelief  in,  453; 
validity  of  the  testimony  to,  454 ; 
Renan  on,  455 ;  harmonize  with  na- 
ture, 473  ;  their  credibility,  536  seq. 

Mclinists,  their  doctrine  of  "  sufficient 
grace,"  336. 

Montaigne,  his  scepticism,  443. 

Morrison,  John,  licensed  to  preach  by 
Archbishop  Grindal,  191. 

Mozly,  Dr.  J.  B.,  his  review  of  New- 
man's essay  on  Development,  43  ;  hia 
view  of  liberty  and  necessity,  2.50. 

Mliller,  Julius,  on  the  supralapsarian 
doctrine,  248,  347  ;  on  future  punish- 
ment, 424. 

Neal,  on  the  admission  of  non-episco- 
pal ministers  to  preferment  in  the 
English  Church,  19L 


552 


INDEX. 


Neander,  on  future  punishment,  423 
seq. 

Newman,  Cardinal,  his  theory  of  de- 
velopment, 42 ;  on  the  Pope's  "power 
of  jurisdiction,"  136;  on  the  Pope's 
control  over  the  conscience,  138,  238. 

Nicholas  I.,  Pope,  73. 

Nicholas  II. ,  Pope,  his  regulations  for 
the  election  of  popes,  149. 

Nitzsch,  C.  I.,  on  future  punishment, 
424. 

Norton,  Andrews,  his  scholarship,  254  ; 
his  address  to  the  Cambridge  divinity 
school,  376. 

Old  Catholic  movement,  the,  67. 
Ordinal,  proper   construction  of  the, 

214  seq.  ;   the  changes  in,  in  1661, 

217. 
Origen,  on  the  Christian  festivals,  56 ; 

on  future  punishment,  413. 
Otho  I.,  his  interference  in  Italy,  75. 
Owen,  John,  his  discussion  of  original 

sin,  SbO ;  on  imputation,  383. 

Palacky,  on  the  safe-conduct  given  to 
Huss,  113. 

Palfrey,  Dr.  John  G.,  on  the  eloquence 
of  the  younger  Buckminster,  253. 

Papacy,  the  Latin  spirit  in  the,  45 ;  its 
theocratic  claim  in  the  middle  ages, 
68;  its  relation  to  political  society  in 
the  past  and  present,  141. 

Papias,  his  testimony  to  the  gospels, 
525. 

Parens,  on  imputation,  387. 

Parker,  J.  H.,  on  the  paintings  in  the 
catacombs,  54. 

Parker,  Theodore,  his  popular  talents, 
354  ;  Unitarianism  characterized  by, 
261 ;  his  rejection  of  miracles,  377. 

Pascal,  Blaise,  338 ;  "bu  the  resistibility 
of  grace,  394. 

Paschal  IIL,  Pope,  73. 

Paul,  the  apostle,  religious  before  his 
conversion,  488;  righteousness,  his 
ideal,  489 ;  his  view  of  the  office  of 
the  Mosaic  system,  489  ;  his  sense  of 
sin,  491 ;  how  delivered  by  Christ,492 ; 
Bteps  in  his  conversion,  494 ;  impor- 


tance to  him  of  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  495 ;  his  attitude  towards  Ju- 
daizing  tendencies,  496 ;  hated  by  the 
Jews,  497;  motive  of  his  discussion 
of  election,  498  ;  his  type  of  doctrine, 
500  ;  exalts  love,  503  ;  as  a  mission- 
ary, 504  ;  his  mingled  shrewdness  and 
enthusiasm,  504 ;  not  versed  in  Greek 
learning,  505;  his  tenderness,  509; 
his  consecration,  509 ;  lessons  from 
his  life,  510. 

Peabody,  Ephraim,  254. 

Pfclagianism,  contrasted  with  the  the- 
ology of  Dr.  N.  W.  Taylor,  333 ;  its 
leading  ideas,  329  ;  how  defined  by 
Augustine,  330 ;  superficial  character 
of,  459. 

Pepin,  his  conquest  of  the  Lombards, 
71 ;  his  donation  to  the  Pope,  71. 

Peter,  the  Apostle,  his  relation  to  the 
other  apostles  and  to  the  church,  146  ; 
Roman  Catholic  idea  of  his  prece- 
dence, 146. 

Peter  Lombard,  his  discussion  of  origi- 
nal sin,  368. 

Philip  IT.  of  Spain,  his  ambitious 
schemes,  14. 

Philosophy,  its  relation  to  faith,  447 
seq. 

Phocas,  the  patron  saint  of  sailors,  58. 

Pilkington,  Bishop,  on  the  identity  of 
bishop  and  presbyter,  185. 

Pius  VL,  Pope,  a  piisoner  in  France, 
87. 

Pius  VII.,  Pope,  Napoleon's  conflict 
with,  87. 

Pius  IX. ,  Pope,  his  policy  at  the  outset, 
87  ;  protest  against  the  law  of  papal 
guarantees,  100;  his  liberal  meas- 
ures, 156;  his  political  plans,  156  ; 
his  abandonment  of  the  liberal  pol- 
icy, 157 ;  promulgates  the  dogma  of 
the  Immaculate  Conception,  158 ;  in- 
fluence of  the  Jesuits  upon,  159  ;  his 
Syllabus,  159;  summons  the  Vatican 
Council,  159. 

Placaeus,  Joshua,  his  doctrine  of  im- 
putation, 384,  389  seq. 

Pope,  origin  of  the  term,  1 42  ;  the  of- 
fice of  the,  143  ;  his  relation  to  other 


INDEX. 


553 


bishops,  143 ;  his  authority  in  rela- 
tion to  oecumenical  councils,  144 ; 
meaning  of  the  Vatican  definition  of 
his  infallibility,  144;  his  legislative 
and  judicial  powers,  145  ;  method  of 
electing  the,  153  ;  coronation  and  en- 
thronement of  the,  154. 

Protestantism,  stimulates  mental  en- 
ergy, 164 ;  its  effect  in  Holland,  165 ; 
in  England,  165 ;  in  the  United 
States,  165 ;  favors  universal  educa- 
tion, 165;  circulates  the  Scriptures, 
166  ;  favors  civil  and  religious  liber- 
ty, 166  seq.  ;  condemns  religious  per- 
secution, 170;  supplants  the  ascetic 
type  of  religion,  170;  keaps  alive  the 
spirit  of  progress,  171  ;  not  responsi- 
ble for  modern  unbelief,  172  ;  devises 
means  of  preventing  social  evils, 
175 ;  its  type  in  Southern  Europe, 
66. 

Pseudo-Dionysius,  on  the  use  of  in- 
cense in  worship,  60. 

Punishment,  future,  the  doctrine  of, 
in  the  Anglican  Church,  4C3 :  Canon 
Farrar  on,  433  ;  Rev.  T.  Binney  on, 
434 ;  Thomas  Erskine  on,  435 ;  Dr. 
Charles  Chauncey  on,  436 ;  the 
younger  Edwards  on,  430 ;  its  con- 
nection with  Calvinism,  430  seq.; 
Justin  Martyr's  view  of,  411 ;  Ire- 
naeus's  view  of,  411  ;  Jewish  opin- 
ions respecting,  410;  doctiine  of 
Arnobius  concerning,  412;  Origen's 
doctrine  of,  413;  the  design  of,  413; 
view  of  Robert  Hall  concerning,  414  ; 
Gregory  of  Nyssa  on,  415 ;  the  An- 
tioch  school  on,  415;  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  on,  415 ;  rejection  of 
Origen's  opinion  on,  415;  recent  Ger- 
man theologians  on,  420  seq.; 
Schleiermacher  on,  423;  Neander 
on,  433;  Nitsch  on,  434;  Julius 
Muller  on,  424  ;  Rothe  on,  436  seq.; 
Marten  sen  on,  439. 

Purgatory,  history  of  the  doctrine  of, 
416  ;  Augustine's  view  of,  418  ;  view 
of  the  Eastern  Church  concerning, 
418  ;  doctrine  of,  attacked  by  the  re- 
formers, 418. 


Ramus,  Peter,  his  death,  24. 

Rationalism,  its  distinguishing  note, 
441 ;  its  variety  of  phases,  441 ;  not 
the  legitimate  fruit  of  Protestantism, 
442;  its  three  forms,   449;    in  the 

■  form  of  positivism,  449 ;  in  the  form 
of  agnosticism,  451  ;  in  the  field  of 
history,  453 ;  rejects  inspiration, 
456 ;  ignores  the  darkening  influence 
of  sin,  457;  not  to  be  met  by  opposi- 
tion to  science,  463 ;  effect  of  an 
awakening  of  the  moral  nature  on, 
465. 

Reformers,  the  English,  their  theory 
of  Episcopacy,  181  seq. 

Regeneration,  Dr.  N.  W.  Taylor's  con- 
ception of,  319. 

Religion,  its  foundation  in  human  na- 
ture, 450. 

Renan,  his  bias,  455 ;  on  the  character 
of  Paul,  493. 

Restoration,  universal,  431. 

Ridgeley,  on  original  sin,  396. 

Rienzi,  Cola  di.  his  career,  81. 

Ripley,  George,  his  learning,  254 ;  his 
reply  to  Andrews  Norton,  276. 

Roman  Catholicism,  a  return  to  the  old 
dispensation,  40. 

Rothe,  on  future  punishment,  436. 


St  Germain,  peace  of,  13. 

Saiviati,  Cardinal,  31. 

Saints,  w^orship  of,  51  seq. 

Sandys,  Archbishop  of  York,  his  con- 
flict with  Whittingham,  189 ;  con- 
sults the  Zurich  pastors  on  church 
government,  211, 

Saturnalia,  56. 

Savigny,  on  Pepin's  donation  to  the 
Pope,  71.  ^ 

Saumur.  the  French  school  of,  384. 

Scepticism,  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  443. 

Schleiermacher,  on  future  punishment, 
433. 

Science,  the  function  of  physical  and 
natural,  473 ;  not  contradictory  to  the 
Bible,  474. 

Udentia  media^  835  seq. 


554 


INDEX. 


Scriptures,  Protestant  doctrine  of  the 
authority  of,  456. 

Scotland,  the  reformation  in,  2. 

Sectarianism,  decline  of,  353. 

Belf-love,  Edwards  on  the  idea  of, 
243. 

Sigillaria,  57. 

Sigismund,  the  Emperor,  the  safe-con- 
duct given  by  him  to  Huss,  113. 

Sin,  divine  permission  of,  305  seq. ;  Dr. 
N.  "W.  Taylor's  definitions  of,  310  seq. ; 
an  evident  fact  in  human  character, 
458. 

Sin,  original,  Edwards's  doctrine  con- 
cerning, 239;  Augustinian  theory, 
356;  Federal  theory  of,  357;  rela- 
tion of  the  Federal  to  the  Augus- 
tinian doctrine  of,  378  seq. 

Sixtus  IV.,  Pope,  8;  his  character, 
83. 

Smalley,  Dr.  John,  oa  possible  im- 
provements in  theology.  287 ;  on  the 
doctrine  of  original  sin,  397. 

Smith,  Dean,  of  Canterbury,  233. 

Spain,  Protestantism  in,  2. 

Spencer,  Herbert,  on  the  relativity  of 
knowledge.  451. 

Stanley,  Dean,  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
English  leformers  respecting  episco- 
pacy, 178. 

Stewart,  Dugald,  his  opinion  of  Jona- 
than Edwards,  227. 

Stillingfieet,  Bishop,  his  views  of  epis- 
copacy, 205  seq. 

Stuart,  Mary,  9  ;  her  return  to  Scot- 
land, 11. 

Stuart,  Moses,  his  conception  of  the 
Trinity,  273. 

♦'Supernatural  Religion,"  its  object, 
512;  reproduces  the  Tubingen  criti- 
cism, 513;  on  Justin's  quotations,  514 
seq.;  on  Justin's  "Memoirs,"  515 
seq.;  on  the  Muratorian  Canon,  533; 
on  Marcion's  gospel,  533  seq.;  on  the 
testimony  of  Papias,  525 ;  on  the 
fourth  gospel.  539  seq. ;  on  the  testi- 
mony of  Irenaeus,  531  ;  on  miracles, 
536  seq. ;  on  the  alleged  credulity  of 
the  Jews,  539;  its  capital  defect, 
548. 


Sutri,  the  synod  of,  75. 

Syllabus,  issue  of  it,  by  Pius  IX.,  159. 

Symbolism,     the    nature    of,   63;    its 

proper  limits  in  Christian  worship, 

63  seq. 

Tauler,  John,  328. 

Taylor,  Dr.  John,  read  in  New  England, 

256. 
Taylor,  Dr.  N.  W.,  his  idea  of  election, 
325  seq.,  338;  of  grace  in  regenera- 
tion, 340  ;  on  sin  as  a  principle,  344, 
320  seq.  ;  on  the  divine  permission 
of  sin,  347  ;  his  aim  as  a  theologian, 
308 ;  on  the  problem  of  liberty  and 
necessity,  308;  on  the  voluntary 
nature  of  sin,  310  ;  on  sin  as  a  per- 
manent principle,  310 ;  on  the  con- 
nection of  our  sin  with  that  ot 
Adam,  311 ;  on  the  tendency  to  sin, 
311;  on  sinfulness  by  "nature," 
312  ;  opposes  the  Hopldnsian  theory 
of  divine  efficiency,  312 ;  on  moral 
inability,  313;  his  "self-love  the- 
ory," 313  seq. ;  his  use  of  the  term 
"self-love,"  317;  on  the  doctrine  of 
regeneration,  319;  on  special  grace, 
328 ;  not  a  Pelagian,  329  seq. ;  his 
personal  traits,  386;  his  metaphy- 
sical talents,  287. 

Tertullian,  his  style,  36;  his  legal 
phraseology,  48 ;  on  the  art  of  paint- 
ing, 53. 

Theodore  of  MopsUestia,  on  future 
punishment,  415. 

Theology,  New  England,  its  belief  in 
progress,  287 ;  its  free  spirit  of  in- 
quiry, 288. 

Theology,  New  Haven,  its  essential 
features,  347  seq. 

Transcendentalism,  its  rise  in  New 
England,  277. 

Travers,  Ma&ter  of  the  Temple,  why 
deposed  by  Whitgift,  189;  teacher 
of  Ussher,  189. 

Turretine,  Francis,  his  theory  of  impu- 
tation, 393. 

Ultramontanism,  its  character,  139. 
Unitarianism,  its  rise  in  New  England, 
255  seq. ;  developed  in  antagonism  to 


INDEX. 


555 


the  theology  of  Edwards  and  Hop- 
kins, 256  seq.;  why  not  found  in 
Connecticut,  259 ;  connected  with  a 
new  type  of  culture  in  New  England, 
260  seq. 

Universalism,  413. 

Ussher,  Archbishop,  his  views  of  epis- 
copacy, 199  seq. 

Vassy,  the  massacre  of ,  11. 

Vatican,  the  Council  of  the,  how  com- 
posed, 126 ;  Mr.  Gladstone's  discus- 
sions of  its  decrees,  133  seq. 

Vendome,  Anthony  of,  his  character, 
9. 

Victor  Emanuel,  takes  possession  of 
Rome,  99,  157. 

Virtue,  Edwards's  theory  of,  241  seq. ; 
265. 

Vitringa,  Campegius,  on  the  theology 
of  the  covenants,  377. 

War,  the  morality  of,  281. 
Ware,  Henry,  Jr.,  his  piety,  254. 
Watts,  Isaac,  on  original  sin,  239,  397. 
Weissman,  on  the  theology  of  the  Cov- 
enants, 375. 


Wesley,  John,  contrasted  with  Calvin, 

500. 
Westminster  creeds,  on  the  imputation 

of  Adam's  sin,  383. 
Whately,  Archbishop,  on  false  claims 

to  Catholicity,   236;  on   the  future 

state,     431 ;    on    the    function     of 

science,  472. 
Whitgift,   his  doctrine  of  episcopacy, 

186 ;     on    church     ceremonies    and 

government,  193. 
Whittinghara,  Dean  of  Durham,  the 

attempt  to  depose  him,  188. 
William  III.,  his  Calvinism,  248. 
Woods,  Dr.  Leonard,   on   original  sin, 

302 ;  on  moral  agency,  303. 


Zabarella,  Cardinal,  in  the  Council  of 
Constance,  105  seq. 

Zacharias,  Pope,  70. 

Zurich  Letters,  the,  illustrate  the  in- 
timate relations  of  the  English  and 
the  continental  churches,  210. 

Zwingle,  his  doctrine  of  original  sin, 


fai^  ani  l^aHonfllism. 

By  Prof.  GEORGE  P.  FISHER,  D.D.. 
Author   of  "The   Beginnings   of  Ohristianitf,"    The   Reformation,*'    Eta 


One  Volume,  12mo,  Cloth,  $1,25. 


**This  valuable  and  timely  volume  discusses  ably,  trenchantly  and 
decisively  the  subjects  of  which  it  treats.  It  contains  within  small  limits 
a  large  amount  of  information  and  imanswerable  reasoning." — Presbyterian 
Banner. 

"  The  book  is  valuable  as  a  discussion  of  the  mysteries  of  faith  and 
the  characteristics  of  rationalism  by  one  of  the  clearest  writers  and 
thinkers." — Washington  Post. 

*'  The  author  deals  with  many  of  the  questions  of  the  day,  and  does 
so  with  a  freshness  and  completeness  quite  admirable  and  attractive." 
— Presbyterian, 

**  This  singularly  clear  and  catholic-spirited  essay  will  command  the 
attention  of  the  theological  world,  for  it  is  a  searching  inquiry  into  the 
very  substance  of  Christian  beUef." — Hartford  Courant. 

"  This  little  volume  may  be  regarded  as  virtually  a  primer  <rf  modem 
religious  thought,  which  contains  within  its  condensed  pages  rich  materials 
that  are  not  easily  gathered  from  the  great  volumes  of  our  theological 
authors.  Alike  in  learning,  style  and  power  of  descrimination,  it  is  honor- 
able to  the  author  and  to  his  university,  which  does  not  urge  the  claims 
of  science  by  slighting  the  worth  of  faith  or  philosophy." — N.  V,  Times, 

"  Topics  of  profound  interest  to  the  studious  inquirer  after  truth  are 
discussed  by  the  author  with  his  characteristic  breadth  of  view,  catholicity 
of  judgment,  affluence  of  learning,  felicity  of  illustration,  and  force  of 
reasoning.  .  .  .  His  singular  candor  disarms  the  prepossessions  of  his 
opponents.  ...  In  these  days  of  pretentious,  shallow  and  garrulous 
scholarship,  his  learning  is  as  noticeable  for  its  solidity  as  for  its  compass." 
—iV.  K  Tribune. 


*0*  The   ahffve   look  for  sale  by  all  booksellers,  or  will  be  sent,  ^e^id,  upon 
rtceipt  of  price^  by 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S   SONS,  Publishers, 

743  AND  745  Broadway,  New  York. 


The 


Conflict  of  Christianity 

WITH    HEATHENISM. 

By  DR.    GERHARD     UHLHORN. 

TRANSLATED     BY 

PROF.  EGBERT    C.  SMYTH    and    REV.  C.  J.  H.  ROPES. 


One   Volume,    Crown   8vo,   $2.50. 

This  volume  describes  with  extraordinary  vividness  and  spirit  the 
religious  and  moral  condition  of  the  Pagan  world,  the  rise  and  spread 
of  Christianity,  its  conflict  with  heathenism,  and  its  final  victory.  There 
is  no  work  that  portrays  the  heroic  age  of  the  ancient  church  with  equal 
spirit,  elegance,  and  incisive  power.  The  author  has  made  thorough  and 
independent  study  both  of  the  early  Christian  literature  and  also  of  the 
contemporary  records  of  classic  heathenism. 


CRITICAL     NOTICES. 

•*  It  is  easy  to  see  why  this  volume  is  so  highly  esteemed.  It  is 
systematic,  thorough,  and  concise.  But  its  power  is  in  the  wide  mental 
vision  and  well-balanced  imagination  of  the  author,  which  enable  him  to 
reconstruct  the  scenes  of  ancient  history.  An  exceptional  clearness  and 
force  mark  his  style." — Boston  Advertiser. 

"  One  might  read  many  books  without  obtaining  more  than  a  fraction 
of  the  profitable  information  here  conveyed  ;  and  he  might  search  a  long 
time  before  finding  one  which  would  so  thoroughly  fix  his  attention  and 
command  his  interest." — PAH  S.  S.    Times. 

"Dr.  Uhlhorn  has  described  the  great  conflict  with  the  power  of  a 
master.  His  style  is  strong  and  attractive,  his  descriptions  vivid  and 
graphic,  his  illustrations  highly  colored,  and  his  presentation  of  the  subject 
earnest  and  effective." — Providence  jfournal. 

"  The  work  is  marked  for  its  broad  humanitarian  views,  its  learning, 
and  the  wide  discretion  in  selecting  from  the  great  field  the  points  of 
deepest  interest." — Chicago  Inter-Ocean. 

"This  is  one  of  those  clear,  strong,  thorough-going  books  which  are 
a  scholar's  delight." — Hartford  Religious  Herald. 


*^*  For  sale  by  all  booksellers,   or  sent  post-paid  upon    receipt   of 
^rice^   by 

CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS, 

Nos.  743  AND  745  Broadway,  New  York. 


Old  Faiths  in  New  Light 

BY 

NEWMAN    SMYTH, 

Author    of   "  The   Religions   Feeling.'*^ 


One  Volume,  12mo,  cloth,        -        -        -        $1.80. 


This  work  aims  tb  meet  a  growing  need  by  gathering  materials  of 
faith  which  have  been  quarried  by  many  specialists  in  their  own  depart- 
ments of  Biblical  study  and  scientific  research,  and  by  endeavoring  to 
put  these  results  of  recent  scholarship  together  according  to  one  leading 
idea  in  a  modern  construction  of  old  faith.  Mr.  Smyth's  book  is  remark- 
able no  less  for  its  learning  and  wide  acquaintance  with  prevailing  modes 
of  thought,  than  for  its  fairness  and  judicial  spirit. 


CRITICAL  NOTICES. 


"The  author  is  logical  and  therefore  clear.  He  also  is  master  of  a  singularly 
attractive  literary  style.  Few  writers,  whose  books  come  under  our  eye,  succeed  in 
treating  metaphysical  and  philosophical  themes  in  a  manner  at  once  so  forcible  and  so 
interesting.  We  speak  strongly  about  this  book,  because  we  think  it  exceptionally 
valuable.  It  is  just  such  a  book  as  ought  to  be  in  the  hands  of  all  intelligent  men  and 
women  who  have  received  an  education  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  read  intelligently 
about  such  subjects  as  are  discussed  hereiii,  and  the  number  of  such  persons  is  very 
much  larger  tlian  some  people  think." — Congregationalist. 

"We  have  before  had  occasi(m  to  notice  the  force  and  elegance  of  this  writer,  and 
his  new  book  shows  scholarship  even  more  advanced.  *  *  *  When  we  say,  with 
some  knowledge  of  how  much  is  undertaken  by  the  saying,  that  there  is  prob.ibly  no  book 
of  moderate  compass  which  combines  m  greater  degree  clearness  of  style  with  profundity 
of  subject  and  of  reasoning,  we  fulfil  simple  duty  to  an  author  whose  success  is  all  the 
more  marked  and  gratifying  from  the  multitude  of  kindred  attempts  with  which  we  have 
been  flooded  from  all  sorts  of  pens." — Presbyterian. 

"The  book  impresses  us  as  clear,  cogent  and  helpful,  as  vigorous  in  style  as  it  is 
honest  in  purpose,  and  calculated  to  render  valuable  service  in  showing  that  religion  and 
science  are  not  antagonists  but  allies,  and  that  both  lead  up  toward  the  one  God.  We 
fancy  that  a  good  many  readers  of  this  volume  will  entertain  toward  the  author  a  feeling 
of  sincere  personal  gratitude." — Boston  Journal. 

"  On  the  whole,  we  do  not  know  of  a  book  which  may  better  be  commended  to 
thoughtful  persons  whose  minds  have  been  unsettled  by  objections  of  modern  thought 
It  will  be  found  a  wholesome  work  for  every  minister  in  the  land  to  read." 

— Examiner  and  Chronicle. 

'*  It  is  a  long  time  since  we  have  met  with  an  abler  or  fresher  theological  treatise 
than  Old  Faiths  in  New  Light,  hy  Newman  Smyth,  an  author  who  in  his  work  on 
"The  Religious  Feeling"  has  already  shown  ability  as  an  expounder  of  Christian 
doctrine. "  —Independent. 


*#*  Foi;    sale    by    all  booksellers,  or   sent  postpaid.,    upon    receipt    of  price, 

chari.es  scribner's  sons, 

Nos.  743  AND  745  Broadway,  New  York. 


"The  world  has  waited  for  this  publication,  and  now  that  it  has  appeared,  it 
will  be  diligently  read  by  all  men." 


THE    AUTOBIOGRAPHY 

PRINCE    METTERNIOH. 

Edited  by  his  Son,  Prince  Metternich.     Translated  by  Robina  Napier, 
Wiih  a  minute  index  prepared  especially  for  this  edition. 

2  vols.,  8vo.    With  Portrait  and  Fac-similes      -       -       $5.00. 


For  twenty  years— since  it  became  known  at  his  death  that  the  great  diplomatist 
of  the  Napoleonic  period  had  left  his  memoirs — the  publication  of  this  book  has  been 
looked  for  with  such  interest  as  perhaps  no  other  personal  revelations  could  have 
aroused.  Prince  Metternich's  own  directions  kept  it  back  during  this  time;  and  this 
fact,  with  the  complete  secresy  preserved  as  to  the  contents  of  the  manuscript,  rightly 
led  to  the  belief  that  he  had  treated  the  events  and  persons  of  his  day  with  an  un- 
sparing candor. 

The  simultaneous  publication  of  the  memoirs  in  Germany,  France,  England  and 
America  is  therefore  something  more  than  a  literary  event.  Metternich  alone  held  the 
keys  of  the  most  secret  history  of  the  most  important  epoch  in  modern  times,  and  ia 
this  book  he  gives  them  up — an  impossibility  during  his  life.  Even  to  especial  students, 
who  know  what  problems  these  disclosures  have  been  expected  to  solve,  the  value  of 
what  they  open  will  be  as  surprising  as  the  extraordinary  care  with  which  they  have 
been  guarded. 

The  announcement  alone  isof  sufiicient  interest,  that  we  are  at  last  in  possession 
of  the  autobiography  of  the  statesman  who  from  the  French  Revolution  to  Waterloo, 
took  part  in  the  making  of  nearly  every  great  treaty,  and  was  himself  the  negotiator 
of  the  greatest  ;  and  who  from  1806  to  1815,  was  the  guiding  mind  of  the  vast  combin- 
ations which  defeated  Napoleon  andi.decided  the  form  of  modern  Europe. 


EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS  OF  THE  METTERNICH 
MEMOIRS. 

^  "  The  great  chancellor  writes  with  an  exceedingly  easy  pen.  It  is  indeed  inter- 
esting to  follow  his  narration,  so  clear  that  one  never  loses  the  thread  of  his  story,  and 
so  graphic  that  we  get  a  glimpse  of  the  scenes  as  with  our  own  eyes.  The  work  is 
intensely  interesting  to  read,  and  of  the  greatest  value  to  the  historical  student.'*— 
N.   Y.  Independent. 

"Of  the  great  value  of  the  work  we  have  already  spoken.  It  not  only  enables 
the  world  for  the  first  time  to  understand  clearly  the  objects  for  which  Prince  Metter- 
nich contended  throughout  his  long  public  life,  but  casts  fresh  light  on  some  of  the 
most  obscure  historical  incidents  of  his  day." — The  Atheneeum. 

"The  Memoirs  of  Metternich  are  to  be  heartily  welcomed  oy  all  who  are  inter- 
ested either  in  the  serious  facts  or  the  lighter  gossip  of  history.  There  is  no  period, 
indeed,  in  recent  history,  more  important  or  attractive  than  that  covered  by  the  first 
volume  of  these  xxkemoirs." — Boston  Literary  World. 


*^*  For  sale    by   all   booksellers^    or  will  be  sent,  prepaid,  upon 
teceipt  of  price,  by 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS,  Publishers, 

743  AND  745  Broadway,  New  York. 


., ^ . C>PA«» -^^    ■*--tiE  T.A.Otn  -TK  .  ^ 

RETURN       CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
TOHJ^       202  Main  Library 


642-3403 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

1 -month  loons  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 

6-month  loons  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books  to  Circulation  Desk 

Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  mode  4  days  prior  to  due  dote 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

fH^I     -- 

AUG  3  0  1977 V^ 

fZZ.  CIR.FB  20  78 

1 

FORM  NO.  DD  6,  40m,  6-76           UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 

BERKELEY,  CA  94720 

YC3D045 


^ 


1  87  ir,  4 


3j>JB-*vAJ\_ 


*  r 


,       v'A 


^"^ 


